From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Apr 30 18:23:12 2009
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.org
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 635BE106566B;
	Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:23:11 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org)
From: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org>
To: freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.org
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 14:22:54 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2
References: <49DB639A.4090504@icyb.net.ua> <49F5AAF0.9080607@freebsd.org>
	<20090427212016.43dd83d6@fabiankeil.de>
In-Reply-To: <20090427212016.43dd83d6@fabiankeil.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200904301423.03761.jkim@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: run resume code only for S1-S4 states
X-BeenThere: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: ACPI and power management development <freebsd-acpi.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi>,
	<mailto:freebsd-acpi-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-acpi>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-acpi-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi>,
	<mailto:freebsd-acpi-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:23:12 -0000

On Monday 27 April 2009 03:20 pm, Fabian Keil wrote:
> Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> wrote:
> > on 25/04/2009 11:21 Fabian Keil said the following:
> > > Sure. It turns out that the problem is unrelated to your patch.
> > > I can reproduce it with an unpatched kernel too, by once
> > > pressing the power button before the second core is started.
> > >
> > > I probably did the same a few days ago, and forgot about it.
> > > Sorry.
> >
> > thank you very much for the testing and the insight, this is very
> > useful and interesting.
> > I think that it might be that 'init' process in pre-natal state
> > loses a signal sent to it.
> >
> > I decided to follow Nate's advice and exempt S5 from timeout
> > policy (after all it is possible to execute shutdown(8) multiple
> > times and concurrently with any other sleep request). With
> > previous version of the patch once shutdown_nice() failed once it
> > was impossible to enter any sleep state ever. shutdown_nice
> > failure is quite exotic event, but as you have proven it is not
> > impossible.
> >
> > So the new patch is attached.
>
> Thanks. The patch works and pressing the power button early on
> boot before it actually has any effect no longer prevents the
> power button from working later on.

Can you try r191699 acpi.c and tell me if there is any regression?

Thanks!

Jung-uk Kim