latitude e6410 has blank screen on return from suspend
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
linux (Ubuntu) |
New
|
Undecided
|
Unassigned |
Bug Description
A new latitude e6410 (with Intel graphics) will go into suspend but returns with a blank screen (black screen). The fan turns back on and some HDD and wireless/network activity is seen, but there seems to be no way to get a terminal or X window back on. Attempts to use Kamal's newly patched kernel have proven fruitless also.
ProblemType: Bug
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 10.04
Package: linux-image-
Regression: No
Reproducible: Yes
ProcVersionSign
Uname: Linux 2.6.32-23-generic x86_64
AlsaVersion: Advanced Linux Sound Architecture Driver Version 1.0.21.
Architecture: amd64
ArecordDevices:
**** List of CAPTURE Hardware Devices ****
card 0: Intel [HDA Intel], device 0: STAC92xx Analog [STAC92xx Analog]
Subdevices: 2/2
Subdevice #0: subdevice #0
Subdevice #1: subdevice #1
AudioDevicesInUse:
USER PID ACCESS COMMAND
/dev/snd/
CRDA: Error: [Errno 2] No such file or directory
Card0.Amixer.info:
Card hw:0 'Intel'/'HDA Intel at 0xf6960000 irq 22'
Mixer name : 'Intel G45 DEVIBX'
Components : 'HDA:111d76d5,
Controls : 22
Simple ctrls : 13
Date: Thu Jun 17 13:26:39 2010
HibernationDevice: RESUME=
InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 10.04 LTS "Lucid Lynx" - Release amd64 (20100429)
MachineType: Dell Inc. Latitude E6410
ProcCmdLine: BOOT_IMAGE=
ProcEnviron:
LANG=en_US.utf8
SHELL=/bin/bash
RelatedPackageV
SourcePackage: linux
dmi.bios.date: 03/05/2010
dmi.bios.vendor: Dell Inc.
dmi.bios.version: A01
dmi.board.name: 0667CC
dmi.board.vendor: Dell Inc.
dmi.board.version: A00
dmi.chassis.type: 9
dmi.chassis.vendor: Dell Inc.
dmi.modalias: dmi:bvnDellInc.
dmi.product.name: Latitude E6410
dmi.product.
dmi.sys.vendor: Dell Inc.
The 'duplicate' bug #578673 is a different architecture (i386 vs. amd64) and is a different processor (i5 vs. i7 core). This is not to say that the same solution may not fix both these bugs. (I have tried the solutions mentioned in the 'duplicate' bug also...)
Should this remain marked as a duplicate? (It is close, but not a duplicate...)