Accelerometers jerky with new stable kernels?
"Marco Trevisan (Treviño)"
mail at 3v1n0.net
Fri Nov 7 19:36:41 CET 2008
Andy Green wrote:
> Somebody in the thread at some point said:
> | Using this reverting list  to get a woking stable kernel (image ).
> | With itthe accelerometers work well also after suspend/resume (that
> | works here, since it seems needed to the
> | fix-glamo-mci-slow-clock-until-first-bulk.patch as reported in the
> | kernel ML).
> | I'm using my moko with OpenDoom in these days and all is completely
> It's great you found some suspend stability, but on 2.6.24 / stable
> there is zero doubt it is purely random chance build by build. I would
> guess that's why you can 'tune' stability by just removing patches that
> affect the resume race by timing, even though the patches themselves
> have no direct impact on suspend otherwise. I found I could make or
> break a 2.6.24 kernel for suspend merely by adding printk()s around.
Ah, ok... I knew that many of these patches were not causing direct
troubles, but since I found that starting from a particular commit I was
building non working (from the suspend/resume point of view) kernels, I
decided to take this commit as my base and then adding only the patches
(i.e. removing the others) that were more important for the standard usage.
> Real solution is coming closer in stable-tracking for these problems
> hopefully, although right now accel comms is completely broken in there.
> ~ But it should be straight in next couple of weeks kind of timeframe.
Nice to read... I'll give it a try as soon as I can, and I think it will
be my default kernel as soon as the fixes you mentioned will be there! :)
Treviño's World - Life and Linux
More information about the support