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

[Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>]

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