From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH #upstream-fixes] libata-acpi: missing _SDD is not an error Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:58:38 +0900 Message-ID: <4B065A3E.3040404@kernel.org> References: <4B03F585.3090000@kernel.org> <4B0657D6.3000004@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:45655 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752636AbZKTI5R (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:57:17 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4B0657D6.3000004@garzik.org> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Garzik Cc: IDE/ATA development list , Takashi Iwai Hello, 11/20/2009 05:48 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > On 11/18/2009 08:24 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: >> Missing _SDD is not an error. Don't treat it as one. >> >> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo >> Reported-by: Takashi Iwai >> --- >> drivers/ata/libata-acpi.c | 15 +++++++++------ >> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > hmmmm, do you have a link to the bug report? Unfortunately, it's from novell internal bugzilla entry, but the following is how it looks like without the patch. [ 15.720046] ata1: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 300) [ 16.540846] ata1.00: ACPI _SDD failed (AE 0x5) [ 16.553907] ata1.00: ACPI: failed the second time, disabled [ 16.567311] ata1.00: configured for UDMA/100 > How critical is this? Is it a regression fix? It's not critical. libata-acpi code will give up after a couple of tries and just turn off ACPI and is not a regression. > We are very late into 2.6.32-rc, where we try to minimize the patches > applied as much as possible. This can go into #upstream then. No biggie. Thanks. -- tejun