Re: [PATCH] [APM] Is this the correct way to fix suspend bug introduced in 2.6.0-test4?

[Michael Schierl]

Pavel Machek schrieb:
> 
> Hi!
> >
> > the patch below (against 2.6.1-mm5) fixes my APM problems (my laptop, Acer
> > TravelMate 210TEV (Celeron 700, 128 MB RAM), hangs after resuming from APM
> > since 2.6.0-test4).
> >
> > If you have any suggestions, tell me 

> I think you should use device_power_down() and device_power_up(),
> instead. Check it, but it looks to me like that's better way.

Works for me as well (Patch attached).

> > if you think that's okay like that, please submit that to the guy who is
> > responsible for 2.6 (is it Linus or Andrew? did not follow lkml
> > recently).
> 
> Andrew.

Thanks. BTW: I did not get any response from Stephen Rothwell (the guy
who is listed as maintainer for APM in the MAINTAINERS file). How long
should I wait for a response? Or should I simply submit the patch to
Andrew?

Michael--- linux-2.6.2-rc2-mm1/arch/i386/kernel/apm.c.old	Thu Jan 29 16:22:03 2004
+++ linux-2.6.2-rc2-mm1/arch/i386/kernel/apm.c	Thu Jan 29 16:22:07 2004
@@ -1201,6 +1201,7 @@ static int suspend(int vetoable)
 	}
 
 	device_suspend(3);
+	device_power_down(3);
 
 	/* serialize with the timer interrupt */
 	write_seqlock_irq(&xtime_lock);
@@ -1234,6 +1235,7 @@ static int suspend(int vetoable)
 	if (err != APM_SUCCESS)
 		apm_error("suspend", err);
 	err = (err == APM_SUCCESS) ? 0 : -EIO;
+	device_power_up();
 	device_resume();
 	pm_send_all(PM_RESUME, (void *)0);
 	queue_event(APM_NORMAL_RESUME, NULL);
@@ -1252,6 +1254,7 @@ static void standby(void)
 {
 	int	err;
 
+	device_power_down(3);
 	/* serialize with the timer interrupt */
 	write_seqlock_irq(&xtime_lock);
 	/* If needed, notify drivers here */
@@ -1261,6 +1264,7 @@ static void standby(void)
 	err = set_system_power_state(APM_STATE_STANDBY);
 	if ((err != APM_SUCCESS) && (err != APM_NO_ERROR))
 		apm_error("standby", err);
+	device_power_up();
 }
 
 static apm_event_t get_event(void)