Re: [PATCH] BIOS SATA legacy mode failure

[Robert Hancock <hancockrwd@gmail.com>]

On 10/16/2013 08:42 AM, Levente Kurusa wrote:
> 2013-10-16 02:16 keltezéssel, Robert Hancock írta:
>> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Levente Kurusa <levex@linux.com> wrote:
>>> 2013-10-13 07:57 keltezéssel, Robert Hancock írta:
>>>> On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 3:29 AM, Levente Kurusa <levex@linux.com> wrote:
>>>>> 2013-10-12 04:06 keltezéssel, Robert Hancock írta:
>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Levente Kurusa <levex@linux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 2013-10-01 06:25 keltezéssel, Robert Hancock írta:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Robert Hancock <hancockrwd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Levente Kurusa <levex@linux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 2013-09-28 06:55 keltezéssel, Robert Hancock írta:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Levente Kurusa <levex@linux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2013-09-25 08:31 keltezéssel, Robert Hancock írta:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 1:13 AM, Levente Kurusa <levex@linux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2013-09-21 19:04 keltezéssel, Robert Hancock írta:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Levente Kurusa <levex@linux.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The following dmesg is stuck in an infinite loop.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dmesg:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ata3: lost interrupt (Status 0x50)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ata3.00: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x0 action 0x6
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frozen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ata3.00: failed command: READ DMA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ata3.00: cmd c8/00:08:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/e0 tag 0 dma 4096
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                     res 40/00:00:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/00
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Emask
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0x4
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (timeout)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ata3.00: status: { DRDY }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ata3: soft resetting link
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ata3.00: configured for UDMA/33 (no error)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ata3.00: device reported invalid CHS sector 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ata3: EH complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Patch that fixes the infinite loop:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-eh.c b/drivers/ata/libata-eh.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> index f9476fb..eeedf80 100644
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-eh.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-eh.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -2437,6 +2437,14 @@ static void ata_eh_link_report(struct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ata_link
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *link)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                   ehc->i.action, frozen,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tries_buf);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                       if (desc)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                               ata_dev_err(ehc->i.dev, "%s\n",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> desc);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +               ehc->i.dev->exce_cnt ++;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +               ata_dev_warn(ehc->i.dev, "Number of exceptions:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> %d\n",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ehc->i.dev->exce_cnt);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +               /**
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +                  * The device is failing terribly,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +                 * disable it to prevent damage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +                 */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +               if(ehc->i.dev->exce_cnt > 2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +                       ata_dev_disable(ehc->i.dev);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>               } else {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                       ata_link_err(link, "exception Emask 0x%x
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                    "SAct 0x%x SErr 0x%x action
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0x%x%s%s\n",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/libata.h b/include/linux/libata.h
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> index eae7a05..fa52ee6 100644
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/include/linux/libata.h
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/libata.h
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -660,7 +660,8 @@ struct ata_device {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>               u8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> devslp_timing[ATA_LOG_DEVSLP_SIZE];
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>               /* error history */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -       int                     spdn_cnt;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +       int                     spdn_cnt; /* Number of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed_downs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +       int                     exce_cnt; /* Number of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exceptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happenned */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>               /* ering is CLEAR_END, read comment above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CLEAR_END
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>               struct ata_ering        ering;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>        };
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This doesn't seem like a very good fix. It may prevent the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apparent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop but will just prevent that device from functioning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be better if we could figure out what was actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have tested the problem with three different computers, all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> switched
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to legacy/IDE/compatibility mode, and they didn't have this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course, they could have been set to AHCI mode, and there the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kernel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> boot normally. Feels strange, but so far I was only able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reproduce
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem with a Toshiba MK8052GSX. On the topic of my patch, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see why a device which fails so terribly that it reports 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exceptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shouldn't be disabled. Like in this case, it could cause infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loops.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that this could happen in some cases when you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to disable the device, like an error that just happens
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sporadically and works on retry, or a device you're trying to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recover
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data from.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think if I edit the patch in a way, that when an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> successfully completes, it resets exce_cnt to zero. Might as well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> add
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> module_param, which can set the maximum value of exce_cnt, while
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zero
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as an option to never disable the device. Please don't think me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't want to force this patch, I just want to learn how all this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the process try to make it better. :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That would be better, but I think you're still going to have an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with what magic number to pick to avoid disabling devices
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inappropriately.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conceptually, disabling the device doesn't really make sense anyway.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone in userspace wants to keep trying to read from that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> device,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why would you stop them because of some arbitrary judgement? The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kernel itself isn't "locked up" during this process, anything not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blocked on I/O to that device should be able to continue running, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that process is only hurting itself. If the system fails to boot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another device due to this, this would likely point out some kind of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem in userspace or the distro boot process being overly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> serialized.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have been booting up with the initramfs from ubuntu 13.04,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I have also tried to boot with the ubuntu install cd. They
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continue the boot process. I'm gonna spend the weekend trying to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> figure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out where and why the interrupts don't happen. Whether it be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> routing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or a hardware issue, which I highly doubt due to the fact that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Windows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> XP SP2 was able to boot up without errors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you able to get out full dmesg output from a boot attempt and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contents of /proc/interrupts?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said before, I am not able to get to the shell, without my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'symptom
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cure'. With my patch I get the following dmesg output, with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some of my debug messages turned off:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://pastebin.com/5eb5G3Dx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /proc/interrupts is here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://pastebin.com/84CJey2D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After yesterday's research, I have come to ata_piix.c . That file looks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the real culprit, as my netbook's controller is an Intel ICH7M one,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The values I am getting from the device are very different than those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are expected.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Things I have noticed, but ignored in dmesg:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a stack dump, because nobody cared about IRQ#20. I have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this because it is the EHCI IRQ, and I suppose it has nothing to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ata. The problem is with ata3 or /dev/sdc, while the IRQ happens
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with /dev/sda, which works fine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it is likely related to the problem. The kernel thinks this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> controller is on IRQ 16, but apparently something is raising
>>>>>>>>>>>>> un-acknowledged interrupts on IRQ 20 and nothing is coming in on IRQ
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 16. It seems quite likely that this is actually the ATA controller.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mentioned that Windows XP was able to work in this mode. I wonder
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if it was using the IOAPIC, as if not then the IRQ routing is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> different which might mask the problem. Do you know what IRQ Device
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Manager reported for this controller in Windows? And was it using any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IRQs over 15 (which would indicate the IOAPIC was in use)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hmm, according to WinXP's Device manager for this controller,
>>>>>>>>>>>> it listens to IRQ# 20, and therefore it is using the I/O APIC.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, one question remains where is the error that mismaps
>>>>>>>>>>>> controller?
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have created a simple patch which seems to fix this:
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -1704,6 +1767,8 @@ static int piix_init_one(struct pci_dev *pdev,
>>>>>>>>>>>> const
>>>>>>>>>>>> struct pci_device_id *ent)
>>>>>>>>>>>>                  hpriv->map = piix_init_sata_map(pdev, port_info,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> piix_map_db_table[ent->driver_data]);
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> +       if(pdev->vendor == 0x8086 && pdev->device == 0x27C4)
>>>>>>>>>>>> +               pdev->irq = 20;
>>>>>>>>>>>>          rc = ata_pci_bmdma_prepare_host(pdev, ppi, &host);
>>>>>>>>>>>>          if (rc)
>>>>>>>>>>>>                  return rc;
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I am more than sure that this is not the way
>>>>>>>>>>>> to solve this problem. Do you have any idea on where
>>>>>>>>>>>> the ideal place would be to implement a fix?
>>>>>>>>>>>> According to specs of ICH7M, which is essentially the
>>>>>>>>>>>> same as ICH6M, we need to check on what interrupt pin
>>>>>>>>>>>> is the SATA controller, and after that check which IRQ line
>>>>>>>>>>>> is connected to the I/O APIC and decide the IRQ's number
>>>>>>>>>>>> on those findings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Specs of ICH7:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.intel.com/content/dam/doc/datasheet/i-o-controller-hub-7-datasheet.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>> Device 31 Interrupt Route Register: Chapter 7.1.46
>>>>>>>>>>>> Device 31 Interrupt Pin Register: Chapter 7.1.41
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The SATA controller is always Device 31.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It would appear that something is messing up with the ACPI IRQ routing
>>>>>>>>>>> on this machine that's causing us to think the controller is on the
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong IRQ. CCing the linux-acpi list to see if anyone has some
>>>>>>>>>>> additional debugging suggestions. I suspect that dumping the DSDT is
>>>>>>>>>>> likely the first step though. If you can get IASL installed, you can
>>>>>>>>>>> do something like:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> cat /sys/firmware/acpi/tables/DSDT > dsdt.aml
>>>>>>>>>>> iasl -d dsdt.aml
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That should spit out a dsdt.dsl file which would hopefully have the
>>>>>>>>>>> info needed to figure out what's going on.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here is the disassembled DSDT table:
>>>>>>>>>> http://pastebin.com/LWNVht9H
>>>>>>>>>> The SATA controller is at line 5206.
>>>>>>>>>> I also disassembled the SSDT, but nothing interesting was there:
>>>>>>>>>> http://pastebin.com/fus5sxU8
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I disabled the usage of ACPI for IRQs with acpi=noirq,
>>>>>>>>>> and it successfully booted up setting itself to IRQ#3.
>>>>>>>>>> This makes me think that this is the BIOS's fault.
>>>>>>>>>> I think it would be possible to create a DMI check
>>>>>>>>>> and forcibly set the irq to 20 if the DMI matches.
>>>>>>>>>> Any comments on this?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The BIOS may be doing something funky, but since Windows apparently
>>>>>>>>> can figure out it's on IRQ 20, Linux presumably should be able to as
>>>>>>>>> well. DMI checks should be the last resort - Windows almost certainly
>>>>>>>>> doesn't have any machine-specific logic here, and it's hard to tell
>>>>>>>>> what other machine models could be affected. With ACPI stuff, we
>>>>>>>>> generally just need to do the same thing Windows does for things to
>>>>>>>>> work reliably, and DMI checks are more of a hack workaround than a
>>>>>>>>> real fix.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'll try and have a look at the DSDT within the next few days and see
>>>>>>>>> if I can figure anything out, unless someone beats me to it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I haven't gone into too much detail, but one thing I noticed with the
>>>>>>>> DSDT is that there appear to be some _OSI checks for Windows 2006
>>>>>>>> (i.e. Vista) that seem to affect various things, including potentially
>>>>>>>> the PCI IRQ routing table. It's possible that their IRQ routing table
>>>>>>>> is broken for legacy mode with an ACPI OS supporting Vista (as current
>>>>>>>> Linux versions do). Could be this slipped through testing if they only
>>>>>>>> tested AHCI mode with Vista installed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can try booting with the kernel parameters
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> acpi_osi=! acpi_osi="Windows 2001 SP3"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That should make the BIOS think we are Windows XP and bypass the Vista
>>>>>>>> code path. If that works, then you might want to check for a BIOS
>>>>>>>> update on this machine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First of all, sorry for the late reply. I was kinda busy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I tried what you suggested but unfortunately the problem persists.
>>>>>>> This makes me believe that Windows XP does have somekind of DMI check here.
>>>>>>> Of course, while a BIOS update may solve this, I would prefer that Linux
>>>>>>> should also be able to boot up with this broken BIOS as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you are certain that WinXP doesn't use DMI checks,
>>>>>>> it could be that WinXP's driver of ICH7M's SATA controller applies
>>>>>>> a quirk and sets that irq line to #20.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you post the dmesg output from a bootup attempt with those options?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You may also want to try adding just: acpi_osi=!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> None of the 3 possible combinations succeeded to boot.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here are a couple of dmesgs:
>>>>>
>>>>> Params: acpi_osi="Windows 2001 SP3"
>>>>> http://pastebin.com/vF3BSuhc
>>>>>
>>>>> Params: acpi_osi=! acpi_osi="Windows 2001 SP3"
>>>>> http://pastebin.com/BuUzc3es
>>>>>
>>>>> Params: acpi_osi=!
>>>>> http://pastebin.com/u7uRx8Ru
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure the option is actually taking effect properly. There
>>>> should be a message "Disabled all _OSI OS vendors" that shows up in
>>>> dmesg with the ! option. Can you try:
>>>>
>>>> acpi_osi="!" acpi_osi="Windows 2001 SP3"
>>>>
>>>> (with the quotes around the ! character).
>>>>
>>>
>>> The following command line worked:
>>> acpi_osi= acpi_osi="Windows 2001 SP3"
>>>
>>> So, it seems that the BIOS is broken. Is there any way to fix this,
>>> without resorting to the hackish DMI checks?
>>
>> Probably not really. Have you checked for a newer BIOS version on this machine?
>>
>> If not, this is likely similar to a number of other systems listed in
>> acpi_osi_dmi_table in drivers/acpi/blacklist.c which need to disable
>> reporting Vista support.
>>
>
>
> Yup, the attached patch fixed it.
> I will post it a little bit later, mind if I add your signed-off-by line? :)
>
> I would do a BIOS update and see if it was fixed there, but it seems that Toshiba's
> BIOS updater and the BIOS itself causes more trouble than the problems fixed.

Sorry for the delay. Seems OK to me. When you submit the patch you 
should include a link to this thread to the commit message, so someone 
in the future would have a hope of knowing why this quirk is in here.

You can add my:

Reviewed-by: Robert Hancock <hancockrwd@gmail.com>

> ---
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/blacklist.c b/drivers/acpi/blacklist.c
> index cb96296..34d4d1a 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/blacklist.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/blacklist.c
> @@ -267,6 +267,14 @@ static struct dmi_system_id acpi_osi_dmi_table[] __initdata = {
>  		     DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_NAME, "Satellite P305D"),
>  		},
>  	},
> +	{
> +	.callback = dmi_disable_osi_vista,
> +	.ident = "Toshiba NB100",
> +	.matches = {
> +		     DMI_MATCH(DMI_SYS_VENDOR, "TOSHIBA"),
> +		     DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_NAME, "NB100"),
> +		},
> +	},
>
>  	/*
>  	 * BIOS invocation of _OSI(Linux) is almost always a BIOS bug.
>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html