On Friday, 21 September 2007 09:56, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 19:35 -0400, Len Brown wrote:
> > > > (Btw, the above commit message points to just my response with a testing
> > > > patch to the real email: the actual explanation of the INSANE ordering is
> > > > from Len Brown in
> > > >
> > > > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/linux-pm/2006-November/004161.html
> > > >
> > > > and there Len claims that we *must* wake up CPU's early).
> > >
> > > ..and points to commit 1a38416cea8ac801ae8f261074721f35317613dc which in
> > > turn talks about http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5651
> > >
> > > Howerver, it seems that bugzilla entry may just be bogus. It talks about
> > > "it appears that some firmware in the future may depend on that sequence
> > > for correction operation"
> > >
> > > Len, Shaohua, what are the real issues here?
> >
> > Intel's reference BIOS for Core Duo performs some re-initialization
> > in _WAK that will get blow away if INIT follows _WAK.
> > IIR, it is related to re-initializing the thermal sensors.
> > I opened bug 5651 when the BIOS team informed me of this issue.
> >
> > Yes, bringing a processor offline and then online again w/o
> > an intervening suspend or reset would not evaluate _WAK,
> > and thus may still run into the issue.
>
> If this is true, then we should disable the sys/..../cpu/online entry
> right away.
Or drop the execution of _INI from the CPU hotplug, if possible ...
Greetings,
Rafael
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
