On Sunday 10 October 2010 21:47:19 Pavel Machek wrote:
quoted text
> On Sun 2010-10-10 20:47:01, James Hogan wrote:
> > Hi Pavel,
> > 
> > On Sunday 10 October 2010 19:04:00 Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > > 
> > > > If the device which fails to resume is part of a loadable kernel
> > > > module it won't be checked at startup against the magic number
> > > > stored in the RTC.
> > > > 
> > > > Add a read-only sysfs attribute /sys/power/pm_trace_dev_hash which
> > > > contains a list of newline separated devices (usually just the one)
> > > > which currently match the last magic number. This allows the device
> > > > which is failing to resume to be found after the modules are loaded
> > > > again.
> > > > 
> > > > --- a/Documentation/power/s2ram.txt
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/power/s2ram.txt
> > > > 
> > > > @@ -49,6 +49,13 @@ machine that doesn't boot) is:
> > > >     device (lspci and /sys/devices/pci* is your friend), and see if
> > > >     you can fix it, disable it, or trace into its resume function.
> > > > 
> > > > +   If no device matches the hash, it may be a device from a loadable
> > > > kernel +   module that is not loaded until after the hash is checked.
> > > > You can check +   the hash against the current devices again after
> > > > more modules are loaded +   using sysfs:
> > > > +
> > > > +	cat /sys/power/pm_trace_dev_hash
> > > > +
> > > 
> > > Yep, but exact semantics of that sysfs file should probably be linked
> > > in the sysfs documentation...
> > > 
> > > 								Pavel
> > 
> > To clarify, do you mean I should link to
> > Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-power from
> > Documentation/power/s2ram.txt, or just make sure the syfs file is
> > documented in Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-power (which is done in v2
> > of this patch)?
> 
> v2 of the patch is probably ok.
> 
> Also, sysfs should be one entry per file, and strictly speaking, this
> one is not. That may be fine... but as this is debugging facility,
> perhaps it should go to debugfs? Maybe cc gregkh...
> 									Pavel

I thought about the one entry per file issue.
Documentation/filesystems/sysfs.txt says:
quoted text
> It is noted that it may not be efficient to contain only one
> value per file, so it is socially acceptable to express an array of
> values of the same type.

which appears to cover my use of it as they're all the same type (and 
considering that ideally there will be exactly 1 device listed anyway).

I wonder if I should separate them with spaces rather than newlines too 
(newlines just seemed more appropriate for a variable sized list at the time).

I ackowledge your point that debugfs may be a more appropriate place for it, 
but would that also apply to the pm_trace file?

(gregkh is cc'd)

Thanks
James
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/