Skip to contentSkip to conversation

libata-acpi: missing _SDD is not an error

PATCH Applied Tejun Heo 3 participants 6 messages Nov 18, 2009 – Nov 20, 2009 libata

lore
Share & tools
lore

Tejun Heo

author
#0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 libata-acpi: missing _SDD is not an error

Missing _SDD is not an error. Don't treat it as one.

Signed-off-by Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
Reported-by Takashi Iwai <[email protected]>
---
 drivers/ata/libata-acpi.c |   15 +++++++++------
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
drivers/ata/libata-acpi.c +9 -6
index b0882cd..1245838 100644
@@ -807,12 +807,11 @@ static int ata_acpi_exec_tfs(struct ata_device *dev, int *nr_executed)
  * EH context.
  *
  * RETURNS:
- * 0 on success, -errno on failure.
+ * 0 on success, -ENOENT if _SDD doesn't exist, -errno on failure.
  */
 static int ata_acpi_push_id(struct ata_device *dev)
 {
 	struct ata_port *ap = dev->link->ap;
-	int err;
 	acpi_status status;
 	struct acpi_object_list input;
 	union acpi_object in_params[1];

@@ -835,12 +834,16 @@ static int ata_acpi_push_id(struct ata_device *dev)
 	status = acpi_evaluate_object(dev->acpi_handle, "_SDD", &input, NULL);
 	swap_buf_le16(dev->id, ATA_ID_WORDS);
 
-	err = ACPI_FAILURE(status) ? -EIO : 0;
-	if (err < 0)
+	if (status == AE_NOT_FOUND)
+		return -ENOENT;
+
+	if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
 		ata_dev_printk(dev, KERN_WARNING,
 			       "ACPI _SDD failed (AE 0x%x)\n", status);
+		return -EIO;
+	}
 
-	return err;
+	return 0;
 }
 
 /**

@@ -971,7 +974,7 @@ int ata_acpi_on_devcfg(struct ata_device *dev)
 	/* do _SDD if SATA */
 	if (acpi_sata) {
 		rc = ata_acpi_push_id(dev);
-		if (rc)
+		if (rc && rc != -ENOENT)
 			goto acpi_err;
 	}
#2 lore raw
In reply to Tejun Heo
Quoted 7 lines · Tejun Heo

Missing _SDD is not an error. Don't treat it as one.

Signed-off-by Tejun Heo<[email protected]>
Reported-by Takashi Iwai<[email protected]>
---
  drivers/ata/libata-acpi.c |   15 +++++++++------
  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

hmmmm, do you have a link to the bug report?

How critical is this? Is it a regression fix?

We are very late into 2.6.32-rc, where we try to minimize the patches applied as much as possible.

Jeff

#3 lore raw

At Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:48:22 -0500,

Quoted 4 lines · Jeff Garzik
Quoted 2 lines · Tejun Heo

Missing _SDD is not an error. Don't treat it as one.

Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Signed-off-by Tejun Heo<[email protected]>
Reported-by Takashi Iwai<[email protected]>
---
  drivers/ata/libata-acpi.c |   15 +++++++++------
  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

hmmmm, do you have a link to the bug report?

http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551942

But the access is restricted because of SLE*11 stuff (and the machine is too new :)

I can forward dmesg of any other information, but ...

Quoted 1 line

How critical is this? Is it a regression fix?

... it's neither critical nor regression fix. Essentially it suppresses the unneeded warning messages at boot (and gives a more clear error code).

Quoted 2 lines

We are very late into 2.6.32-rc, where we try to minimize the patches applied as much as possible.

It's fine for 2.6.33, I suppose.

thanks,

Takashi

#4 lore raw
Quoted 5 lines · Takashi Iwai

At Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:48:22 -0500,

Quoted 2 lines

We are very late into 2.6.32-rc, where we try to minimize the patches applied as much as possible.

It's fine for 2.6.33, I suppose.

OK, thanks!

Jeff

author
#5 lore raw
In reply to Jeff Garzik

Hello,

Quoted 11 lines · Jeff Garzik
Quoted 7 lines · Tejun Heo

Missing _SDD is not an error. Don't treat it as one.

Signed-off-by Tejun Heo<[email protected]>
Reported-by Takashi Iwai<[email protected]>
---
  drivers/ata/libata-acpi.c |   15 +++++++++------
  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

hmmmm, do you have a link to the bug report?

Unfortunately, it's from novell internal bugzilla entry, but the following is how it looks like without the patch.

[   15.720046] ata1: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 300)
[   16.540846] ata1.00: ACPI _SDD failed (AE 0x5)
[   16.553907] ata1.00: ACPI: failed the second time, disabled
[   16.567311] ata1.00: configured for UDMA/100
Quoted 1 line

How critical is this? Is it a regression fix?

It's not critical. libata-acpi code will give up after a couple of tries and just turn off ACPI and is not a regression.

Quoted 2 lines

We are very late into 2.6.32-rc, where we try to minimize the patches applied as much as possible.

This can go into #upstream then. No biggie.

Thanks.

Signature · 1 line
tejun