From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bruno Ducrot Subject: Re: Handler for [EmbeddedControl] returned AE_TIME in 2.6.1/20040116 Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 11:32:26 +0100 Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Message-ID: <20040204103226.GI882@poupinou.org> References: <20040203172413.GA1299@joehill.bostoncoop.net> <20040203143906.B33512@root.org> <20040203234141.GA8327@bostoncoop.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040203234141.GA8327-/J5p37YCQWYytDrLOV7HaA@public.gmane.org> Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: Adam Kessel Cc: Nate Lawson , acpi-devel-TtF/mJH4Jtrk1uMJSBkQmQ@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 06:41:41PM -0500, Adam Kessel wrote: > On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 02:40:16PM -0800, Nate Lawson wrote: > > We moved to a 100 ms timeout on EC requests for FreeBSD because some > > devices just couldn't respond quicker. But I think there's a larger issue > > somewhere here where interrupts are being lost. > > Is FreeBSD using the same ACPI code base? For EC I tend to say 'no'. > Is there an easy patch to apply > to test to see if this eliminates or mitigates the problem? Under driver/acpi/ec.c you have a #define ACPI_EC_UDELAY_COUNT 1000 Try with #define ACPI_EC_UDELAY_COUNT 10000 That should give you a 100ms timeout. -- Bruno Ducrot -- Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? -- Don't know. Don't care. ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn