kernel-2.6.17-1.2139_FC5 won't sleep
Matthew Saltzman
mjs at ces.clemson.edu
Tue Jun 27 13:22:47 UTC 2006
I'm not top-posting, so my additions are fairly far down.
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006, David A. De Graaf wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 09:51:36PM -0400, Matthew Saltzman wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006, David A. De Graaf wrote:
>>
>>> With kernel-2.6.17-1.2139_FC5 my IBM T30 laptop will no longer enter sleep
>>> mode. More accurately, it won't wake up. When I close the lid and later
>>> reopen it, the old XFCE4 display lights up, but is frozen. Nothing works -
>>> CTL-ALT-F2, CTL-ALT-BS. The only option is to press and hold the power
>>> button to shutdown and reboot.
>>>
>>> I was so proud of myself for finally figuring out how to make the sleep
>>> mode work with the broken FC5. The documentation is mighty sparse.
>>> If I create these additional files, sleep mode seems to work, although
>>> I'm not sure that the battery drain is as low as it used to be:
>>
>> Actually, on my T41, FC5 is the first release to suspend/resume correctly
>> right out of the box (modulo an issue with powering off the graphics chip
>> that's been around for a while and has a known workaround). But I can
>> think of a few points to consider. For one thing, I'm running GNOME.
>
> One might hope that the window manager would simply manage windows and
> have no effect on the sleep function - but that would be probably be
> utopian and naive.
GNOME has an applet that interacts with pm-utils to control power
behavior. I think that's all.
>
>>
>> Were you using APM or ACPI in FC4?
>
> I misspoke that sleep mode works in FC4. Apparently that was
> remembered from an even earlier time, say, FC3. Sorry!
>>
>> Did you update from FC4 or do a fresh install? Do you have pm-utils
>> installed?
>
> I freshly installed FC5, but I retained a separate partition with the
> entire FC4 system. By rebooting the FC4 system, I found that sleep
> mode didn't work there, either. In the earlier system that did work I
> must have been using APM, because I only recently learned about ACPI,
> and the new control files that must be added to make sleep work.
>
> I do have pm-utils installed, but don't knowingly use any of the 11
> programs contained because there are only 2 man pages, and one of them
> is wrong - on_ac_power returns 0 with or without the charger connected.
> Call me a coward, but I lack enthusiasm for blindly trying programs that
> suggest they might irreversibly change the state of my machine.
>
A fresh install of FC5 sets these up by default to do power management.
>>
>> What's your video card? Are you seeing the machine indicate that it's
>> suspended properly but just stay hot and drain the battery? What part of
>> the machine stays hot?
>
> lspci says my IBM T30 laptop has this:
> 01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc
> Radeon Mobility M7 LW [Radeon Mobility 7500]
>
> I haven't accurately measured the comparative rates of battery
> discharge while asleep vs. awake because it takes a long time to do
> the experiment. I will, though.
> I do have the subjective recollection that when the earlier non-ACPI
> system slept, the battery drain was very, very low.
> Now, after pressing Fn-F4 to enter sleep mode, I can see that the screen,
> although blank, seems to still have the backlight on. That would seem
> to use power unnecessarily, but I can't find any way to turn that off,
> too.
OK try the following:
(1) Edit /etc/modprobe.conf and add the following:
options radeonfb radeon_force_sleep=1
(2) Create /etc/sysconfig/mkinitrd containing the following line:
MODULES="radeonfb"
(3) Rebuild your initrd:
mkinitrd -f /boot/initrd-2.6.17-1.2139_FC5.img 2.6.17-1.2139_FC5
(4) Reboot.
(5) Test suspend.
>
>>
>> Are you logged in when you suspend?
>
> Yes, certainly. I'm running X, and xfce4.
OK because I've seen that closing the lid from the login screen does not
suspend.
>
> I've also just tried sleeping from a basic console - with no X running -
> with both kernel 2.6.16-1.2133_FC5 and 2.6.17-1.2139_FC5.
> Both kernels sleep and awaken satisfactorily. Therefore the failure of
> the newer kernel to awaken with X running is almost surely a misfunction
> with the X server.
No real surprise there...
>
>
--
Matthew Saltzman
Clemson University Math Sciences
mjs AT clemson DOT edu
http://www.math.clemson.edu/~mjs
More information about the fedora-list
mailing list