On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> On 2/3/06, Randy.Dunlap <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> >
> > > On 2/3/06, Matthew Garrett <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > This is untrue as Linux has support for setting IDE controller
> > > > > and drives. It was added by Benjamin Herrenschmidt in late
> > > > > 2.5.x or early 2.6.x (I don't remember exact kernel version).
> > > >
> > > > In generic_ide_resume, rqpm.pm_step gets set to
> > > > ide_pm_state_start_resume and ide_do_drive_cmd gets called. This ends up
> > > > being passed through to start_request. start_request waits for the BSY
> > > > bit to go away. On the affected hardware I've seen, this never happens
> > > > unless the ACPI calls are made. As far as I can tell, there's nothing in
> > > > the current driver code that does anything to make sure that the bus is
> > > > in a state to accept commands at this point - the pci drivers don't (for
> > > > the most part) seem to have any resume methods. Calling the ACPI _STM
> > > > method before attempting to do this magically makes everything work.
> > >
> > > I don't see anything that prevents addition of ->suspend and ->resume
> > > for IDE PCI host drivers (not IDE core issue) if some special sequence
> > > is needed.
> > >
> > > I see that we may be doing PIO/DMA setup too late (IDE core issue)
> > > for some controllers.
> > >
> > > Could you fill a bug at kernel bugzilla with data as much data about
> > > affected hardware as possible (dmesg, kernel config, lspci -vvv -xxx
> > > before susped and if possible PCI configuration dumped from kernel
> > > after suspend)?
> > >
> > > What is the current state of IDE ACPI patches?
> > > Were the issues raised on linux-ide addressed?
> >
> > I haven't seen any updates to the drivers/ide/ patch from
> > Shaohua Li <[email protected]>. I'm beginning to work on
> > PATA ACPI object support that is similar to the current SATA ACPI
> > patches -- all for libata. Is this the right or wrong thing
> > to do?
>
> Working on patches is always right thing to do... 8)
Of course. That wasn't really the question. 8;)
> Just one remark: please try to make ACPI part
> as libata/SCSI independent as possible.
You sort of replied obliquely to my "all for libata" comment.
These patches are all libata-specific.
At least they are SCSI-independent. :)
--
~Randy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
