From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758321AbZBFTUa (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Feb 2009 14:20:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753566AbZBFTUN (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Feb 2009 14:20:13 -0500 Received: from mail.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.172]:55937 "EHLO ns3.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753489AbZBFTUM (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Feb 2009 14:20:12 -0500 Message-ID: <498C8D68.3040504@candelatech.com> Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 11:20:08 -0800 From: Ben Greear Organization: Candela Technologies User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070530) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Len Brown CC: linux-kernel , NetDev , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Regression on VIA C3 motherboard, commit: 66f2173e2 References: <498A93E5.2080509@candelatech.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Len Brown wrote: > Thanks for the bisect, Ben. > > Please test the patch below. > > I assume even without the patch, booting with "acpi=off" on your > BIOS-ACPI-disabled box works? (if no, this patch will not solve > all your problems, for you have additional trouble elsewhere) > > I am curious why you're running a CONFIG_ACPI=y kernel > for a box with ACPI disabled. (though yes, it is supposed to work) > > I'm even more curious what bad things happen when > you enable ACPI in the BIOS -- can you let me know > and we can try to fix them so the machine can run as shipped? At one time, these boxes would actually burn out their power supply if you did an 'init 0' with the BIOS configured to shut down the system. It would just suck more and more power (we measured) until the brick smoked, and the motherboard components got very hot as well. I think we were just lucky that the PS died before the MB did. This was a while back, but I believe part of the fix was to disable ACPI so the system couldn't possibly try to power itself down in this manner. I will try your patch, but I'm about to go off for a ~2week vacation, so I probably won't have time to test enabling ACPI and/or compiling a kernel w/out it to see what shakes out. I re-worked my previous patch per Ingo's suggestion and am about to send it off..but please feel free to NAK it if you think it's wrong. I don't really know enough about this area to argue one way or another. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com