From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 2.6.24-rc4-git5: Reported regressions from 2.6.23
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 14:59:34 +0900
Message-ID: <475B8446.4010300@gmail.com>
References: <fa.qQhD8aJpiTOFaZqjRYwoaG7YT1c@ifi.uio.no> <fa.yaP86AixGhz5Q7eXSu04pIQp6ho@ifi.uio.no> <fa.c3k8VKWAx4HIo9zXWbL5Ek0oSBw@ifi.uio.no> <fa.C8ACnOhs8bXB++vmugf5F34JcJg@ifi.uio.no> <fa.5o6E6S0UWnARbQPxLe30TvLQIiY@ifi.uio.no> <475AE150.9050306@shaw.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.190]:31596 "EHLO
	rv-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750985AbXLIF7n (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>); Sun, 9 Dec 2007 00:59:43 -0500
Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id k20so1228662rvb
        for <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>; Sat, 08 Dec 2007 21:59:42 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <475AE150.9050306@shaw.ca>
Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
To: Robert Hancock <hancockr@shaw.ca>
Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Andreas Mohr <andi@lisas.de>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org

Robert Hancock wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 02:20:01AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 11:12:57 +0100 Andreas Mohr <andi@lisas.de> wrote:
>>>> ACPI Exception (exoparg2-0442): AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT, Index
>>>> (0FFFFFFFF) is beyond end of object [20070126]
>>>> ACPI Error (psparse-0537): Method parse/execution failed
>>>> [\_SB_.PCI0.IDE0.GTF_] (Node c180b990), AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT
>>>> ACPI Error (psparse-0537): Method parse/execution failed
>>>> [\_SB_.PCI0.IDE0.CHN0.DRV1._GTF] (Node c180b888), AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT
>>>> ata1.01: _GTF evaluation failed (AE 0x300d)
>>
>> 037f6bb79f753c014bc84bca0de9bf98bb5ab169 ought to have fixed this?
>>
> 
> I should think it should have.
> 
> I think we're too aggressive about disabling the libata ACPI support,
> even. One of my laptop's _GTF commands on resume is a DEVICE
> CONFIGURATION FREEZE LOCK command, which gets rejected by the drive
> (maybe it worked on the original Hitachi disk, but I've upgraded it to a
>  newer Samsung). I'd say if the drive returns command aborted on one of
> these, we should just ignore that command and continue to the next one
> without trying to retry or disabling the ACPI support entirely.

Yeap, my pending patchset does exactly that.  It's currently being
tested by but reporters.  I'll soon post the patchset.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun