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

Hi!

> > > 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?

I'd submit patch to andrew, Cc: stephen. -mm series should get enough
testing, and this is not to big patch.

[The patch looks good to me, btw.]
									Pavel


> 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)


-- 
When do you have a heart between your knees?
[Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?]