From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Nov 23 18:03:40 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AD2C16A420
	for <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>; Wed, 23 Nov 2005 18:03:40 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from bakul@bitblocks.com)
Received: from gate.bitblocks.com (bitblocks.com [209.204.185.216])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C95A543D81
	for <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>; Wed, 23 Nov 2005 18:03:31 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from bakul@bitblocks.com)
Received: from bitblocks.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by gate.bitblocks.com (8.13.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jANI3Qkp097690;
	Wed, 23 Nov 2005 10:03:26 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from bakul@bitblocks.com)
Message-Id: <200511231803.jANI3Qkp097690@gate.bitblocks.com>
To: "Damien Bergamini" <damien.bergamini@free.fr>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 23 Nov 2005 18:11:33 +0100."
	<00c401c5f050$f4a10390$0300a8c0@COMETE> 
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 10:03:26 -0800
From: Bakul Shah <bakul@BitBlocks.com>
Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/modules/iwi Makefile src/sys/dev/iwi 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 18:03:40 -0000

> This is FreeBSD 7.
> If you can't afford temporary breakage, use RELENG_6.

Temporaray breakage is fine but I was hoping it didn't extend
too long while people were hashing out different ideas :-)
For now I have just reverted to an older kernel.

But since you bring this up, as a general rule, IMHO even if
this is -current every effort needs to be made to keep things
running.  And I think this is true by and large.

> Are you sure your suspend/resume problem comes from iwi ?

It paniced in iwi_init() or something (I was in a hurry so
didn't pay much attention).  If it will help, I can certainly
retry it and send you the details.

> Does it happen if you ifconfig iwi0 down before suspending ?

No idea.

> Was suspend/resume working with the old iwicontrol stuff ?

Yes.  This is why I suspect the fix is probably very simple.

Thanks for your & Scott's response.

-- bakul