Re: 2.6.24-rc4-git5: Reported regressions from 2.6.23

Robert Hancock
2007-12-10T01:28:35Z

Andreas Mohr wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 01:04:31AM +0100, Andreas Mohr wrote:
>> IOW, it seems very likely that _GTM on these BIOSes (VIA chipsets) isn't
>> actually wrongly implemented but simply expects IDE controller values
>> to have been set up ""differently"".
>>
>>
>> Or... one could possibly even infer from this that - maybe -
>> the _GTM invocation spot is wrong, it should be done somewhere
>> different during bootup. Or whatever.
>
> "Whatever" indeed:
>
> There's an ASL Match() for a "PMPT" (Primary Master PorT) PCI register,
> and the possible register values are:
>
> Package (0x04)
> {
> 0x20,
> 0x31,
> 0x65,
> 0xA8
> },
>
> and from
>
> OperationRegion (CFG2, PCI_Config, 0x40, 0x20)
> Field (CFG2, DWordAcc, NoLock, Preserve)
> {
> Offset (0x08),·
> SSPT, 8,·
> SMPT, 8,·
> PSPT, 8,·
> PMPT, 8,·
> Offset (0x10),·
> ...
> we can infer that at PCI_Config offset 0x48 those values should be located.
> However after bootup or resume there are:
>
> # lspci -s 00:11.1 -xxx
> 00:11.1 IDE interface: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82C586A/B/VT82C686/A/B/VT823x/A/C PIPC Bus Master IDE (rev 06)
> 00: 06 11 71 05 07 00 90 02 06 8a 01 01 00 20 00 00
> 10: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> 20: 01 e4 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 06 11 71 05
> 30: 00 00 00 00 c0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ff 01 00 00
> 40: 0b 32 09 0a 18 1c c0 00 99 99 20 20 ff 00 a8 20
> 50: 07 07 f6 f1 14 03 00 00 a8 a8 a8 a8 00 00 00 00
> 60: 00 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 02 00 00 00 00 00 00
> 70: 02 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 82 01 00 00 00 00 00 00
> 80: 00 e0 a1 1f 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> 90: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> a0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> b0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> c0: 01 00 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> d0: 06 00 71 05 06 11 71 05 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> e0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> f0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>
>
> As one can see, the relevant values for SSPT, SMPT, PSPT and PMPT are
> 99 99 20 20, which are not quite entirely valid judging from the array above,
> and this is because the secondary port is unused, as can also be seen
> from my bootup log:
>
> scsi0 : pata_via
> scsi1 : pata_via
> ata1: PATA max UDMA/133 cmd 0x1f0 ctl 0x3f6 bmdma 0xe400 irq 14
> ata2: PATA max UDMA/133 cmd 0x170 ctl 0x376 bmdma 0xe408 irq 15
> ata1.00: ATA-5: WDC WD1200JB-00CRA1, 17.07W17, max UDMA/100
> ata1.00: 234441648 sectors, multi 16: LBA
> ata1.01: ATAPI: TOSHIBA DVD-ROM SD-M1612, 1004, max UDMA/33
> Switched to high resolution mode on CPU 0
> ata1.00: configured for UDMA/100
> ata1.01: configured for UDMA/33
> 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.GTM_] (Node df80b9a8), AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIM
> IT
> ACPI Error (psparse-0537): Method parse/execution failed [\_SB_.PCI0.IDE0.CHN1._GTM] (Node df80b8d0), AE_AML_PACKAG
> E_LIMIT
> ata2: ACPI get timing mode failed (AE 0x300d)
>
>
> Manually tweaking the values to 20 20 20 20 truly does skip the _GTM failure message on suspend -
> only to reappear right on resume due to 99 99 20 20 combo happening again.
> If I don't tweak, I get _GTM failure at both suspend and resume.
>
>
> As such one can conclude that this BIOS is rather very confused when being called for _GTM on an entirely
> unused controller port. And this is either because the BIOS is dumb or because ACPI doesn't really
> expect anyone to call _GTM on an unused physical port. I'd bet on the latter...
> (however I haven't found ACPI 3.0b explicitly mentioning this somewhere yet)
>
> Andreas Mohr
>

Probably Windows doesn't call _GTM on a port with no devices connected,
and so the BIOS people never tested that case. Likely we can just avoid
doing this - if no devices are connected the timing settings for that
channel are irrelevant..

And you're quite right in your comment that we are often too quick to
blacklist hardware instead of looking into why it really is failing.
ACPI is one of those areas where we often just need to figure out how to
be bug-to-bug compatibile with what Windows is doing..

--
Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from hancockr@nospamshaw.ca
Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/