From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bruno Ducrot Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix(Fix _STA checking in acpi_bus_add) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 20:49:02 +0200 Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Message-ID: <20040429184902.GC578@poupinou.org> References: <200404280934.26381.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> <200404290846.41647.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200404290846.41647.bjorn.helgaas-VXdhtT5mjnY@public.gmane.org> Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: Simon Derr , Matthew Wilcox , acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 08:46:41AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Thursday 29 April 2004 2:18 am, Simon Derr wrote: > > On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > > > Is your box based on Intel chipsets and/or firmware? You might be > > Indeed. > > > > > suffering from the problem I described here: > > > > > > https://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=6923358 > > > > > > Intel firmware seems to describe the PCI root bridge where chipset > > > configuration space lives with _STA==0x8. The spec says this means > > > "functional, but not present". The current Linux code ignores things > > > that are "not present". > > > > I tried your patch and it works perfectly. Thank you. > > This chipset/firmware is probably very common in the ia64 world so I think > > it might be a good idea to include your patch in the stock Linux kernel. > > Well, the patch is a gross hack for a special case, and I'd be worried > about it breaking something related to docking or hotplug. That's why > I posted it as "RFC" first, in the hope that someone could explain the > intent behind the Intel firmware. Note that my previous post is how I interpret the specs. I can be completely wrong, and thinks like breaking docking etc. is only based on my interpretation. > Given the current ACPI spec, I'd say it's a bug in the Intel firmware, > and any workaround should be specific to that firmware. If Intel > figures out good semantics for what they're trying to do, I think that > should be reflected in a future spec. It's up to real ACPI experts, like Bob, to tell actually what means exactly that funny 0x8 returned from _STA. -- Bruno Ducrot -- Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? -- Don't know. Don't care. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g. Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click