Re: acpi resume related patch

On Saturday, January 26, 2013 9:18:57 am Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 25/01/2013 18:08 Andriy Gapon said the following:
> > on 25/01/2013 15:51 John Baldwin said the following:
> >> On Friday, January 25, 2013 3:43:33 am Andriy Gapon wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If you have ACPI suspend/resume working, if it used to work but stopped working
> >>> at some time, if it never worked, but you are still hoping, could you please
> >>> test the following patch and report back?
> >>>
> >>> http://svn.freebsd.by/files/acpi-apic-wakeup-final.patch
> >>
> >> This will break systems not using the local APIC since you unconditionally
> >> call lapic_setup() on resume.This was part of the feature of the previous
> >> code that by using a dummy pic it could register it only when the local APIC
> >> was used.
> > 
> > Thank you for drawing my attention to this.  I will try to fix this issue.
> > The reason I want to remove lapic from 'pics' (and I already described it in a
> > private email) is that Local APIC is a special kind of PIC.  It's already
> > explicitly initialized by APs.  Putting it into 'pics' tailq just obfuscates the code.
> > 
> >> It should also be registered before any of the I/O APICs are by
> >> the design of the local_apic.c code.
> > 
> > In fact, as I see in the code, Local APIC is always registered _after_ I/O APICs.
> > And thus lapic_resume was called after ioapic_resume.
> > Additionally, currently there is no synchronization between initialization of
> > Local APICs on APs and initialization of I/O APICs at the wakeup/resume time.
> > 
> 
> Here is an updated version of the patch:
> http://people.freebsd.org/~avg/acpi-apic-wakeup.2.patch
> 
> John,
> could you please review the PIC-related part?  I decided to go back to the
> current approach while fixing the suspend/resume ordering and also order of
> registration for Local APIC.  Must say that XEN special casing makes
> apic_setup_io a little bit untidy.
> 
> Additionally this patch fixes AP Local APIC initialization ordering on i386.
> In the original patch I changed only amd64 code.

This looks good to me.

-- 
John Baldwin