[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#869435: Dell Latitude D505 / Debian 9 Not powering down



Control: tag -1 moreinfo

On Sun, 2017-07-23 at 10:09 -0400, Aaron Valdes wrote:
> Package: linux-image-686
> Version: 4.9+80
> 
> I have upgrade Dell Latitude D505 to Debian 9.  When shutting down from
> XFCE4, the system does not power off.  The laptop is still on after this
> event.
> 
> The config-4.9.0-3-686 file had CONFIG_APM=n.  See below.
> 
> grep APM /boot/config-4.9.0-3-686
> CONFIG_X86_APM_BOOT=y
> CONFIG_APM=n

No, it has CONFIG_APM=m (module).

And this computer is not nearly old enough to require use of APM.  It
is designed to run Windows 2000 and XP, which means it must have good
ACPI support.

> # CONFIG_APM_IGNORE_USER_SUSPEND is not set
> # CONFIG_APM_DO_ENABLE is not set
> # CONFIG_APM_CPU_IDLE is not set
> # CONFIG_APM_DISPLAY_BLANK is not set
> # CONFIG_APM_ALLOW_INTS is not set
> 
> I set it to:
> 
> CONFIG_APM=y 
> 
> I rebooted the laptop and tried to shutdown from XFCE4 again and it
> worked.

That's interesting.  But this is not a run-time configuration file and
changing it has no effect on the kernel behaviour.

It's conceivable that some program included in Xfce is reading this
file to determine kernel features, but if so, I think it's a bug in
that program.  (I checked with codesearch.debian.net and didn't find
anything.)

> Is this configuration something that can be adjusted in this package?
> Does this configuration defaulted to CONFIG_APM=y conflict with other
> potential setups?  The feature is configured in the kernel, it is just
> not set in the /boot/config-4.9.0-3-686 file. 

I will not be changing the kernel configuration, as there is no need to
build-in APM.

Try changing the file back and test again whether you can shut down
from Xfce.  I strongly suspect it will work this time.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
If the facts do not conform to your theory, they must be disposed of.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: