[2.6.32] Please cherry-pick Toshiba Satellite DSDT corruption workaround

Jonathan Nieder
2011-11-19T05:14:37Z

Hi Greg,

Mirosław Zalewski wrote[1]:

> When kernel is invoked with ACPI support, it has various problems with USB
> detection
[...]
> When finally booted, at least wireless driver (ath9k)
> does not work. I heard that sound does not work as well, but haven't
> tested it myself. With ACPI enabled, kernel is unable to shutdown computer
> properly.
[...]
> This is known flaw of Toshiba Satellite C650/kernel. You can find various
> posts around the net about it.
>
> Toshiba Satellite C650 comes in four variants:
> PSC08E
> PSC10E
> PSC12E
> PSC14E
[...]
> In July there was a BIOS update for 12E and 14E. The new BIOS is version 1.5
> and it is said to fix ACPI issues on Linux [3]. Unfortunetly there is no new
> BIOS for 08E and 10E machines.

Mirosław confirmed that cherry-picking the following six patches on top
of your linux-2.6.32.y tree brings his machine back to sanity:

729df0f848da (ACPICA: Add detection of corrupted/replaced DSDT, 2010-04-01)
69ec87efa815 (ACPICA: Add subsystem option to force copy of DSDT to local
memory, 2010-04-01)
43323cb4c4b6 (ACPICA: Update DSDT copy/detection, 2010-04-07)
aa2110cb1a75 (ACPI: add boot option acpi=copy_dsdt to fix corrupt DSDT,
2010-04-08)
cce4f632db20 (ACPI: fix early DSDT dmi check warnings on ia64,
2010-05-12)
100cf87788c0 (ACPI: invoke DSDT corruption workaround on all Toshiba
Satellite, 2010-09-28)

Patches 1-5/6 have been in Debian squeeze since last September and seem
to work well. Patch 6/6 turns on acpi=copy_dsdt by default for
additional machines that need it, including Mirosław's.

The DMI pattern in 6/6 overreaches a little in my opinion --- it would
be better to look at a BIOS version number or something instead. But
it is what was done in mainline, and false positives should be
harmless. I have tested on my PSC16U (which has BIOS 1.60 and doesn't
need the workaround) that I get

TOSHIBA Satellite detected - force copy of DSDT to local memory

and no other noticeable side-effect.

The patches apply cleanly to linux-2.6.32.y except for patch 2/6,
which has a boring textual conflict with the inverse of 4cdf1a5 (and
the obvious conflict resolution works).

Patches 1-5/6 hit mainline in v2.6.35-rc1~477. Patch 6/6 is
v2.6.36-rc7~25^2^5.

Anyway, I think these make good candidates for application to the
2.6.32.y longterm tree. What do you think?

Regards,
Jonathan

[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=55;bug=598104
> [3] - http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=9622930#post9622930
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html