From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762429AbZFNRUc (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:20:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754363AbZFNRUV (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:20:21 -0400 Received: from rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de ([129.143.116.10]:56219 "EHLO rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753676AbZFNRUU (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:20:20 -0400 Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:20:22 +0200 From: Andreas Mohr To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: andi@lisas.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make e100 suspend handler support PCI cards lacking PM capability Message-ID: <20090614172022.GA22586@rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de> Reply-To: andi@lisas.de References: <20081229102515.GA17171@rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de> <200906141606.29754.rjw@sisk.pl> <20090614164604.GA19746@rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de> <200906141909.46354.rjw@sisk.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200906141909.46354.rjw@sisk.pl> X-Priority: none User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 07:09:45PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sunday 14 June 2009, Andreas Mohr wrote: > > Couple questions still: > > - why do we call pci_wake_from_d3(...false) only!? > > Wouldn't this break WoL after one iteration back and forth, > > due to missing 'true' case? > > The 'true' case is the 'wake = true' one. OK, so it wasn't an explicit pci_wake_from_d3(...true), but the operations done there are the equivalent of it probably. > > - why do we call netif_device_detach() _after_ doing hardware shutdown > > of the network controller? I'd guess this can cause huge issues? > > Someone told me he had rtnl lock issues upon S2D with e100 > > (very similar to my rtnl issues during aborted .suspend), > > and that might possibly be the reason? > > I think you're right, but I'm not a network driver expert. > > Perhaps you can change the ordering and see if that fixes the rtnl issue > (since you're able to reproduce it without my patch, that should be easy to > verify). I'll test this - later. Thanks a lot, Andreas Mohr