From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexey Starikovskiy Subject: Re: a problem about the two patches in bug 10724 & 11428 Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 07:47:43 +0400 Message-ID: <48BF5A5F.6060508@suse.de> References: <1220251221.4039.52.camel@yakui_zhao.sh.intel.com> <20080901122158.GB21970@khazad-dum.debian.net> <48BC522D.60905@suse.de> <48BC57C9.2040409@suse.de> <1220421722.4007.4.camel@yakui_zhao.sh.intel.com> <48BE32AF.0@suse.de> <1220429030.4007.22.camel@yakui_zhao.sh.intel.com> <48BE427C.3070204@suse.de> <1220430856.4007.38.camel@yakui_zhao.sh.intel.com> <48BF0FA1.4040807@suse.de> <1220499806.4007.113.camel@yakui_zhao.sh.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from charybdis-ext.suse.de ([195.135.221.2]:52380 "EHLO emea5-mh.id5.novell.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753709AbYIDDrU (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2008 23:47:20 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1220499806.4007.113.camel@yakui_zhao.sh.intel.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Zhao Yakui Cc: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, lenb@kernel.org Zhao Yakui wrote: > Hi, Alexey > After investigation I found that the laptop in bug 11428 is the same > as that in bug 8459. Is the EC on such laptop that you mean "optimized" > EC? But in fact the OBF and IBF can reflect the EC status correctly > although sometimes there is no GPE interrupt confirmation. Why you use "but in fact" here? There is no reason to repeat to me my own findings as a "new truth"... > At the same time maybe EC will send a notification event requiring OS's > attention. In such case OS can detect whether the notification event is > sent by checking the SCI_EVT bit in the EC GPE interrupt service > routine.(I.E . acpi_ec_gpe_handler). In fact only checking notification > event in ec gpe handler is enough to make EC work. > > If so, the EC work flowchart will become very simple. I will try to > write this patch and consult with Len. You just described software poll mode of EC driver, "missing confirmations" are the switch from pure interrupt mode to "the poll for IBF/OBF changes, but expect interrupt for SCI change". Do you plan to drop pure interrupt mode now? > > There is another issue. From the log in comment #26 of bug 11428 I find > that OS still issues the burst disable command although EC already exits > the burst mode. Maybe we should check whether the EC is in burst mode > before issuing EC burst disable command. Does it hurt? > >ACPI: EC: transaction start > >[ 124.540016] ACPI: EC: <--- command = 0x83 > >[ 124.540016] ACPI: EC: ---> status = 0x0a > >[ 124.542009] ACPI: EC: ---> status = 0x08 > >[ 124.542009] ACPI: EC: transaction end > > Thanks. > > > > >> Alex. >