From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] bitsy uvlong & suspend are fine, thanks. From: Fco.J.Ballesteros MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="upas-viaobwcgjevaitmhecoenqtzmr" Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 15:18:43 +0100 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0fa7f7d2-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --upas-viaobwcgjevaitmhecoenqtzmr Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Your boot loader is newer than mine. Mine is a 2.14 something. Thus I think it has to be that, your bitsy was an H3630, right? I'll take a look at your boot loader to see if I find out anything. --upas-viaobwcgjevaitmhecoenqtzmr Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Received: from mail.cse.psu.edu ([130.203.4.6]) by aquamar; Mon Oct 28 11:19:23 MET 2002 Received: from psuvax1.cse.psu.edu (psuvax1.cse.psu.edu [130.203.18.6]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id C944A19A29; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 05:19:12 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Received: from utrhcs.cs.utwente.nl (utrhcs.cs.utwente.nl [130.89.10.247]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id 205F3199B3 for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 05:18:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from zeus.cs.utwente.nl (zeus.cs.utwente.nl [130.89.10.12]) by utrhcs.cs.utwente.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA04129 for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:18:33 +0100 (MET) Received: from zamenhof.cs.utwente.nl by zeus.cs.utwente.nl (8.10.2+Sun/csrelay-Sol1.4/RB) id g9SAIWQ22023; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:18:33 +0100 (MET) Received: from localhost (belinfan@localhost) by zamenhof.cs.utwente.nl (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2) with SMTP id g9SAIWi16049 for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:18:32 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200210281018.g9SAIWi16049@zamenhof.cs.utwente.nl> X-Authentication-Warning: zamenhof.cs.utwente.nl: belinfan@localhost didn't use HELO protocol To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] bitsy uvlong & suspend are fine, thanks. In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 28 Oct 2002 09:47:13 +0100." References: From: Axel Belinfante X-Organisation: University of Twente, Department of Computer Science, Formal Methods and Tools Group, PO Box 217, NL-7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands X-Phone: +31 53 4893774 X-Telefax: +31 53 4893247 X-Face: 3YGZY^_!}k]>-k'9$LK?8GXbi?vs=2v*ut,/8z,z!(QNBk_>~:~"MJ_%i`sLLqGN,DGbkT@ N\jhX/jNLTz2hO_R"*RF(%bRvk+M,iU7SvVJtC*\B6Ud<7~`MGMp7rCI6LVp=%k=HE?-UCV?[p\$R? mI\n2/!#3/wZZsa[m7d;PKWiuH6'~ Sender: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu Errors-To: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu X-BeenThere: 9fans@cse.psu.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu List-Id: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans.cse.psu.edu> List-Archive: Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:18:32 +0100 > > I'm wondering why your kernel suspend/resumes for you but not > > for me. Different hardware? Or could different bootloader > > versions also play a role? > > Did you try after a hard reset w/o the dual sleeve plugged in? yes, and it did not make a change. (assuming that by hard reset you mean: using the on-off switch `hidden' under the small sliding door at the bottom) > I never tried suspending with a dual sleeve (Have a one-slot pcmcia) > so suspend might not work with that. I tried with and without sleeve > The bootloader is also an issue. Which version are you using? > Mine is rather old now. 2.18.01 Axel. --upas-viaobwcgjevaitmhecoenqtzmr--