Re: [PATCH 8/9] PCI / ACPI / PM: Platform support for PCI PME wake-up (rev. 7)

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Wednesday 10 February 2010, Gary Hade wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 07:00:54PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday 10 February 2010, Gary Hade wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 02:12:29AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday 10 February 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday 10 February 2010, Gary Hade wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 12:58:39PM -0800, Gary Hade wrote:
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > > OK.  I already confirmed that the problem reproduces with your
> > > > > > > patches applied.  I am now in the process of trying vanilla
> > > > > > > 2.6.33-rc7.  If hot-add works with 2.6.33-rc7 I will give
> > > > > > > your patch a try.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The hot-add worked fine with an unpatched 2.6.33-rc7.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Good.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > The new patch when added to the 2.6.33-rc7 tree that
> > > > > > included the original patchset unfortunately did not
> > > > > > correct the problem.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Bad.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Well, fortunately I have another one, but I haven't tested it myself yet except
> > > > > for checking that it builds.  Hopefully it won't break things more.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The patch below applies on top of 2.6.33-rc7 with my PCI runtime PM patchset
> > > > > applied.  Please test it and let me know the results.
> > > > 
> > > > Sorry, I sent a wrong version of the patch by mistake, it doesn't even build.
> > > > The correct one is appended.
> > > 
> > > No problem.  I received this message before doing anything with
> > > the previous one.
> > > 
> > > Sorry, both hot-add and hot-remove behaviors appear unchanged
> > > with this patch.
> > 
> > Hmm, that's kind of strange.  I'm getting suspicious.
> > 
> > > I would like to dig into the code and help with the debugging
> > > but I am swamped with other things right now.  However, feel 
> > > free to continue using me for testing if you have other ideas
> > > you want me to try.
> > 
> > Thanks, of course I have some ideas. :-)
> > 
> > First, please try to test 2.6.33-rc7 with patches [1/9] - [7/9] applied
> > (ie. without the $subject patch and [9/9]).  Let's make sure we're debugging
> > the right patch.
> 
> It does look like both the hot-add and hot-remove issues were
> introduced by something in 1/9 through 7/9.  I started with a
> clean 2.6.33-rc7 tree and applied only 1/9 through 7/9.  I still
> see that lingering blinking amber LED with hot-remove and no
> response from the driver during hot-add.
> 
> Now I suppose you want me to start reverting 1/9 through 7/9
> in reverse order to find the culprit. :)

Actually, I think [6/9] is the offending one, so please try with [1/9] - [5/9]
applied and if that works, please apply [6/9] and retest to confirm it's the
culprit.

Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/