regarding ACPI support in 2.6.21
Hello, all.
Currently, libata-acpi has the following problems.
1. Matching controller/device to ACPI node. It currently uses ap->cbl == ATA_CBL_SATA test to choose between two formats - the traditional ATA nodes with master/slave devices and new native SATA nodes. This is incorrect as ata_piix even if it's SATA should map to traditional ATA nodes while in ahci 00 _ADR in traditional format shouldn't trigger "don't know how to handle SATA port multiplier".
2. Although this isn't very clear in the spec, but some methods seem to be designed to be used only over suspend/resume cycle. SATA aware methods (w/ _SDD) should probably called after every PHY event (device might have been hardreset), but _GTM/_STM/_GTF combination does look like they should be used only over suspend/resume cycles. This is caus
I think it might be better to give up ACPI support in 2.6.21 and target 2.6.22. What do you think?
Thanks.
Signature · 1 line
tejun
Quoted 2 lines
I think it might be better to give up ACPI support in 2.6.21 and target 2.6.22. What do you think?
I removed it from my tree already so that I can actually use libata and do real work. The "crash every non PCI controller" feature in the current ACPI hacks means PCMCIA and ISAPnP do not work any more with libata.
In its current state it should be disabled, its broken, its wrong.
Alan
Quoted 6 lines · Alan Cox
Quoted 2 lines
I think it might be better to give up ACPI support in 2.6.21 and target 2.6.22. What do you think?
I removed it from my tree already so that I can actually use libata and do real work. The "crash every non PCI controller" feature in the current ACPI hacks means PCMCIA and ISAPnP do not work any more with libata.
It sounds like your tree is out-of-date. Your patch to fix that went in days ago, applied by Linus directly:
commit ca4266359d0c1199af088447f209ab5bcc32a989
Author: Alan Cox <[email protected]> Date: Thu Mar 8 23:13:50 2007 +0000
[PATCH] libata-acpi: Try and stop all the non PCI devices crashing
Quoted 1 line
In its current state it should be disabled, its broken, its wrong.
Does the above change your opinion any?
I lean towards disabling it by default in 2.6.21 anyway, but am interested in hearing an updated opinion on what's actually in the public tree.
Jeff
Quoted 2 lines
It sounds like your tree is out-of-date. Your patch to fix that went in days ago, applied by Linus directly:
Its purposefully not tracking every Linus update so I can build a replicable environment. I missed the list mail it went in tho.
Quoted 3 lines
I lean towards disabling it by default in 2.6.21 anyway, but am interested in hearing an updated opinion on what's actually in the public tree.
For PATA disable it, for SATA no opinion.