[9fans] RE: [Bootldr] suspend/resume Plan 9: 2.14.? works, 2.18.{1,45} fails (fwd)

[9fans] RE: [Bootldr] suspend/resume Plan 9: 2.14.? works, 2.18.{1,45} fails (fwd)

[Axel Belinfante]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 394 bytes --]

I asked on the bootldr list, trying to get advice w.r.t.
our suspend/resume observations. Since the answer I got
was sent to the bootldr list (and thus hardly can be considered
``private email'') I have taken the liberty to forward it
to this list, in the hope that someone more knowledgeable than I
can see whether it might help to solve the problem.

One can always hope :-)
Axel.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2821 bytes --]

From: "Hicks, Jamey" <Jamey.Hicks@hp.com>
To: "Axel Belinfante" <Axel.Belinfante@cs.utwente.nl>, <bootldr@handhelds.org>
Subject: RE: [Bootldr] suspend/resume Plan 9: 2.14.? works, 2.18.{1,45} fails
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 14:17:35 -0500
Message-ID: <D99C1FB421989A40818B6370E318709403CD2D07@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>


One things that has changed that could cause a problem based on the amount of time that went by: the bootldr is resetting RTTR to 0x8000 for non-windows operating systems to avoid huge time drift.

Jamey

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Axel Belinfante [mailto:Axel.Belinfante@cs.utwente.nl]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 2:02 PM
> To: Hicks, Jamey; bootldr@handhelds.org
> Subject: Re: [Bootldr] suspend/resume Plan 9: 2.14.? works, 
> 2.18.{1,45}
> fails
> 
> 
> > To me, it sounds like plan9 is not putting the sdram into 
> self-refresh.
> > The bootldr is not involved in the suspend operation at all.  All it
> > does is wake up, notice that it was a resume, turn on dram, and then
> > jump to the addess in the PSPR scratch pad register, transferring
> > control back to the OS.
> 
> I think I see your point.
> Still, how would this explain that suspend/resume with the same plan 9
> kernel does work on one ipaq, and not on the other, where, seemingly,
> the only difference is the bootldr version?
> Hardware seems the same. What could we be overlooking?
> 
> Thanks,
> Axel.
>