> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Saturday, 12 of July 2008, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, 12 of July 2008, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >>>> My Lenovo X61s fails to resume if I suspend it from within X, on both
> >>>> 2.6.26-rc9 and recent wireless-testing. 2.6.26-rc8 is fine, as is
> >>>> wireless-testing with 4b4f7280 reverted. My in-progress bisect between
> >>>> -rc8 and -rc9 is also consistent with this being the problem.
> >>>>
> >>>> The symptom is that, when I push the power button to resume, the hard
> >>>> drive light turns on, the fan turns on, then the hard drive light turns
> >>>> off, the sleep light stays on, and the fan keeps running. Sometimes the
> >>>> battery light will blink off very briefly (1/4 sec, maybe) every few
> >>>> seconds. The system is locked hard at this point.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm using Ubuntu Hardy userspace.
> >>> Well, that's bad.
> >>>
> >>> There is the bugzilla entry at
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11064
> >>> for this bug and you've just confirmed my suspicion that this particular
> >>> commit is to blame.
> >>>
> >>> Can you please see if the appended patch changes anything?
> >> More correctly:
> >>
> >> If I suspend by typing pm-suspend or echo mem >/sys/power/state, then it
> >> resumes just fine. If I log in to Gnome and push the suspend button,
> >> then it does not resume. This seems to be the case with or without your
> >> patch.
> >
> > Is there an Intel graphics in your box?
>
> Yes.
>
> >
> >> -rc8 and -rc9 with the original patch 4b4f7280 resume fine no matter how
> >> I suspend.
> >
> > That's _really_ strange.
> >
> > In fact I have only one explanation, which is that the Gnome suspend button
> > causes some user-space quirks to be applied, which are harmful and break the
> > resume. Also, without commit 4b4f7280 those quirks might have not been really
> > executed. Peter, does it sound reasonable?
>
> Bingo. It's a HAL quirk.
>
> Testing from the console (not X):
>
> With 4b4f7280:
> # echo mem >/sys/power/state -- works fine
>
> # echo 3 >/proc/sys/kernel/acpi_video_flags
> # echo mem >/sys/power state -- fails to resume
>
> Without 4b4f7280:
> # echo mem >/sys/power/state -- works fine
>
> # echo 3 >/proc/sys/kernel/acpi_video_flags
> # echo mem >/sys/power state -- works fine
>
> So HAL contains an apparently unnecessary quirk for my laptop, and
> 4b4f7280 breaks that quirk. Of course, it's entirely possible that
> 4b4f7280 is 100% correct, but that the quirk only worked by accident and
> 4b4f7280 broke the call into video BIOS.
