From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: regarding ACPI support in 2.6.21 Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 23:32:44 +0900 Message-ID: <45F5648C.7020506@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.239]:15191 "EHLO wr-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030187AbXCLOco (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:32:44 -0400 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i28so994490wra for ; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 07:32:43 -0700 (PDT) Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Garzik , Alan Cox Cc: "linux-ide@vger.kernel.org" , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org 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. -- tejun