> > Please consider pushing the appended patch for 2.6.25.
> >
> > It fixed the regression described at:
> >
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=374217
> >
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10340
> >
> > details in the changelog.
>
> >
> > ---
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
> >
> > Some time ago it turned out that our suspend code ordering broke
> > some NVidia-based systems that hung if _PTS was executed with one of
> > the PCI devices, specifically a USB controller, in a low power state.
> > Then, it was noticed that the suspend code ordering was not compliant
> > with ACPI 1.0, although it was compliant with ACPI 2.0 (and later),
> > and it was argued that the code had to be changed for that reason
> > (ref.
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9528). So we did,
> > but evidently we did wrong, because it's now turning out that some
> > systems have been broken by this change (refs.
> >
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10340 ,
> >
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=374217#c16). [I said
> > at that time that something like this might happend, but the majority
> > of people involved thought that it was improbable due to the
> > necessity to preserve the compliance of hardware with ACPI 1.0.]
> > This actually is a quite serious regression from 2.6.24.
> >
> > Moreover, the ACPI 1.0 ordering of suspend code introduced another
> > issue that I have only noticed recently. Namely, if the suspend of
> > one of devices fails, the already suspended devices will be resumed
> > without executing _WAK before, which leads to problems on some
> > systems (for example, in such situations thermal management is
> > broken on my HP nx6325). Consequently, it also breaks suspend
> > debugging on the affected systems.
> >
> > Note also, that the requirement to execute _PTS before suspending
> > devices does not really make sense, because the device in question
> > may be put into a low power state at run time for a reason unrelated
> > to a system-wide suspend.
> >
> > For the reasons outlined above, the change of the suspend ordering
> > should be reverted, which is done by the patch below.
>
> But this will break those few nvidia-based systems, no?
>
> this may have been a good idea in -rc1 days, but we are in -rc7
> now... and the patch is slightly big.
