From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Grover Subject: Re: [ACPI] Re: RFC: ACPI/scsi/libata integration and hotswap Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 19:47:48 -0800 Message-ID: References: <20051209114246.GB16945@infradead.org> <43997171.9060105@pobox.com> <20051209121124.GA25974@srcf.ucam.org> <439975AB.5000902@pobox.com> <20051209122457.GB26070@srcf.ucam.org> <439A23E8.3080407@pobox.com> <20051210023426.GA31220@srcf.ucam.org> <439A4070.2000500@pobox.com> <20051210025004.GB31328@srcf.ucam.org> <439A4422.3030808@pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Return-path: Received: from xproxy.gmail.com ([66.249.82.207]:43280 "EHLO xproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964908AbVLJDrt convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Dec 2005 22:47:49 -0500 Received: by xproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id h26so776616wxd for ; Fri, 09 Dec 2005 19:47:48 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <439A4422.3030808@pobox.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Garzik Cc: Matthew Garrett , Christoph Hellwig , Alan Cox , randy_d_dunlap@linux.intel.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net On 12/9/05, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Yes, I do agree with this WRT PATA. Randy Dunlap's ACPI stuff is > particularly interesting for this, though I haven't had time to review > it in depth. > > I'm a bit more reluctant WRT SATA. (side note: Shaohua's patch added ACPI support to PATA. Randy's was the SATA ACPI support.) ACPI 3.0 specifically mentions SATA and the control methods that it expects the OS to make use of: _SDD and _GTF. This is needed for things like HD password unlocking. So, someone needs to be handling this whenever the SATA drive is reinitialized, such as on resume. So there's gotta be some SATA ACPI code, somewhere. (And if there is, then handling the ICH5 ACPI hotplug interrupt seems like maybe something it should handle, too.) I'm sure it's possible to properly abstract things so that arch-neutral code can remain ACPI-unaware -- I just wanted to make it clear that even if you don't support ICH5 hotplug there are still ACPI requirements for SATA. Regards -- Andy