[PM][ACPI] /proc/acpi/alarm halfway working

[PM][ACPI] /proc/acpi/alarm halfway working

[Karol Kozimor]

Hi,
I've just tested 2.6.0-test5-mm4, it seems that the /proc/acpi/alarm
has ceased to deadlock my laptop and actually started to work as
expected. The only drawback is:
#v+
irq 9: nobody cared!
Call Trace:
 [<c010c57e>] __report_bad_irq+0x2a/0x8b
 [<c010c668>] note_interrupt+0x6f/0x9f
 [<c010c856>] do_IRQ+0xe2/0xe4
 [<c02d1668>] common_interrupt+0x18/0x20
 [<c01f007b>] sys_shmat+0x1f6/0x2b6
 [<c012256c>] do_softirq+0x40/0x97
 [<c010c83d>] do_IRQ+0xc9/0xe4
 [<c02d1668>] common_interrupt+0x18/0x20
 [<c01fb045>] acpi_os_write_port+0x33/0x35
 [<c020f8aa>] acpi_hw_low_level_write+0x118/0x122
 [<c021e6fe>] acpi_ut_trace+0x28/0x2c
 [<c020f5cf>] acpi_hw_register_write+0xca/0x16b
 [<c020f26a>] acpi_set_register+0x1d0/0x2aa
 [<c02232ce>] acpi_system_write_alarm+0x497/0x520
 [<c0150711>] vfs_write+0xbc/0x127
 [<c0150821>] sys_write+0x42/0x63
 [<c02d14fb>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb

handlers:
[<c01faed6>] (acpi_irq+0x0/0x16)
Disabling IRQ #9
#v-

This happens upon the first echo > proc/acpi/alarm. The echo, however, sets
the time right, and the system is actually woken up successfully (S1, S3,
S4 were tested). Subsequent echos work, but do not generate the above
messages. Since IRQ 9 is what ACPI resides on, almost no new events are
reported (except those explicitely trigerred by _WAK).
The chipset is i845M; tell me if full dmesg is needed.
Best regards,

-- 
Karol 'sziwan' Kozimor
sziwan@hell.org.pl

Re: [PM][ACPI] /proc/acpi/alarm halfway working

[Patrick Mochel]

> I've just tested 2.6.0-test5-mm4, it seems that the /proc/acpi/alarm
> has ceased to deadlock my laptop and actually started to work as
> expected. The only drawback is:
> #v+
> irq 9: nobody cared!

Sorry it's taken so long to reply, but I've finally had a chance to track 
this down. Could you try the following patch and let me know if it fixes 
the problem for you? 

Thanks,


	Pat

===== drivers/acpi/utilities/utglobal.c 1.28 vs edited =====
--- 1.28/drivers/acpi/utilities/utglobal.c	Sun Jul 13 16:07:33 2003
+++ edited/drivers/acpi/utilities/utglobal.c	Thu Oct  9 14:27:16 2003
@@ -358,7 +358,7 @@
 	/* ACPI_EVENT_GLOBAL        */  {ACPI_BITREG_GLOBAL_LOCK_STATUS,    ACPI_BITREG_GLOBAL_LOCK_ENABLE,  ACPI_BITMASK_GLOBAL_LOCK_STATUS,    ACPI_BITMASK_GLOBAL_LOCK_ENABLE},
 	/* ACPI_EVENT_POWER_BUTTON  */  {ACPI_BITREG_POWER_BUTTON_STATUS,   ACPI_BITREG_POWER_BUTTON_ENABLE, ACPI_BITMASK_POWER_BUTTON_STATUS,   ACPI_BITMASK_POWER_BUTTON_ENABLE},
 	/* ACPI_EVENT_SLEEP_BUTTON  */  {ACPI_BITREG_SLEEP_BUTTON_STATUS,   ACPI_BITREG_SLEEP_BUTTON_ENABLE, ACPI_BITMASK_SLEEP_BUTTON_STATUS,   ACPI_BITMASK_SLEEP_BUTTON_ENABLE},
-	/* ACPI_EVENT_RTC           */  {ACPI_BITREG_RT_CLOCK_STATUS,       ACPI_BITREG_RT_CLOCK_ENABLE,     0,                                  0},
+	/* ACPI_EVENT_RTC           */  {ACPI_BITREG_RT_CLOCK_STATUS,       ACPI_BITREG_RT_CLOCK_ENABLE,	ACPI_BITMASK_RT_CLOCK_STATUS,	ACPI_BITMASK_RT_CLOCK_ENABLE},
 };
 
 /*****************************************************************************
===== drivers/acpi/sleep/proc.c 1.7 vs edited =====
--- 1.7/drivers/acpi/sleep/proc.c	Wed Sep 10 09:27:28 2003
+++ edited/drivers/acpi/sleep/proc.c	Fri Oct 10 10:05:36 2003
@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
+#include <linux/interrupt.h>
 #include <linux/proc_fs.h>
 #include <linux/seq_file.h>
 #include <linux/suspend.h>
@@ -370,6 +371,14 @@
 };
 
 
+static u32 rtc_handler(void * context)
+{
+	acpi_set_register(ACPI_BITREG_RT_CLOCK_STATUS, 1, ACPI_MTX_LOCK);
+	acpi_set_register(ACPI_BITREG_RT_CLOCK_ENABLE, 0, ACPI_MTX_LOCK);
+	return IRQ_HANDLED;
+}
+
+
 static int acpi_sleep_proc_init(void)
 {
 	struct proc_dir_entry	*entry = NULL;
@@ -385,6 +394,8 @@
 		S_IFREG|S_IRUGO|S_IWUSR, acpi_root_dir);
 	if (entry)
 		entry->proc_fops = &acpi_system_alarm_fops;
+
+	acpi_install_fixed_event_handler(ACPI_EVENT_RTC, rtc_handler, NULL);
 	return 0;
 }