> Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 11:32:15 -0800 > From: Mike Larkin <[email protected]> > > On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 10:04:28AM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > From: Noth <[email protected]> > > > Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 07:22:56 +0100 > > > > > > On 02/20/16 06:46, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > > >> I'm using VAIO Z. Hibernation works, but my vaio also wakes back > > > >> immediately. I have a diff to avoid this wakeup. Unhibernation works > > > >> fine. > > > >> > > > >> The diff seems very bad. :) > > > >> > > > >> Index: sys/dev/acpi/acpi.c > > > >> =================================================================== > > > >> RCS file: /disk/cvs/openbsd/src/sys/dev/acpi/acpi.c,v > > > >> retrieving revision 1.303 > > > >> diff -u -p -r1.303 acpi.c > > > >> --- sys/dev/acpi/acpi.c 14 Jan 2016 21:37:18 -0000 1.303 > > > >> +++ sys/dev/acpi/acpi.c 21 Jan 2016 08:25:59 -0000 > > > >> @@ -2048,6 +2048,7 @@ acpi_enable_wakegpes(struct acpi_softc * > > > >> { > > > >> struct acpi_wakeq *wentry; > > > >> > > > >> +return; > > > >> SIMPLEQ_FOREACH(wentry, &sc->sc_wakedevs, q_next) { > > > >> dnprintf(10, "%.4s(S%d) gpe %.2x\n", > > > >> wentry->q_node->name, > > > >> wentry->q_state, > > > > That is a very interesting diff. Mike will probably remember this. > > > > Was it Berlin? I think sebastia's Viao had a quirk where a wakeup gpe > > > > was doing something wrong. > > > > > > > > That will assuredly break most thinkpads :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That patch works for me, thank you Masahiko. Looks like OpenBSD runs > > > pretty well on this little laptop :) > > > > Next step in the debugging process would be to find out which of the > > wake GPEs is actually responsible. > > > > I have a few reports of these sorts of things failing (eg, resuming > immediately) in my inbox from the past. Every time I've tried to > debug these, even when disabling all the GPEs, the machine still > woke. > > Do you have a better idea?
In this case disabling the GPEs definitely does help.
