From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760797AbXKHLxL (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Nov 2007 06:53:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753581AbXKHLw5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Nov 2007 06:52:57 -0500 Received: from charybdis-ext.suse.de ([195.135.221.2]:36525 "EHLO emea5-mh.id5.novell.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753291AbXKHLw4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Nov 2007 06:52:56 -0500 Message-ID: <4732F879.8080005@suse.de> Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:52:25 +0300 From: Alexey Starikovskiy User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071022) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Romano Giannetti CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.24-rc2 (esthetic?) regression: auto select interrupt spams my logs References: <1194515744.7115.12.camel@rukbat> In-Reply-To: <1194515744.7115.12.camel@rukbat> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Romano, EC was changed to automatically choose it's working mode (poll vs. interrupt driven). You see it oscillating between modes because it receives interrupts just after it stops waiting for them. Please open new bug entry at bugzilla.kernel.org. Your .config might be usefull. Thanks, Alex. Romano Giannetti wrote: > Hi, > > After the ACPI changes between 2.6.24-rc1 and -rc2 I have my logs > "spammed" (every 2-3 seconds) by: > > [ 423.112903] ACPI: EC: missing IBF_1 confirmations,switch off interrupt mode. > [ 423.113020] ACPI: EC: non-query interrupt received, switching to interrupt mode > [ 426.078972] ACPI: EC: missing IBF_1 confirmations,switch off interrupt mode. > [ 426.079645] ACPI: EC: non-query interrupt received, switching to interrupt mode > [ 426.622773] ACPI: EC: missing IBF_1 confirmations,switch off interrupt mode. > [ 426.622889] ACPI: EC: non-query interrupt received, switching to interrupt mode > > It seems that no harm is done, apart (but it could be another thing) > that gnome-panel is much slower on startup. > > Romano > >