On 01/14/2011 05:10 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Friday, January 14, 2011 03:31:16 am Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> On 01/14/2011 01:15 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think we're back to the question of why we have the ICH4 quirk in
>>>> the first place, and I don't know the answer to that.
>>>
>>> Iirc, there were several laptops that didn't have the ACPI region
>>> mentioned in any of the regular places, and we'd allocate the PCMCIA
>>> IO region on top of them. The machine would boot, but if anybody ever
>>> inserted a PCCard into the machine, the first access to the IO region
>>> would generally just halt it (because it was trying to read the
>>> PCCard, but the APCI region decodes first, and then the read from that
>>> usually put the CPU in a sleep state that it would never wake up from
>>> for obvious reasons).
>>>
>>> So we do want the ICH4 quirk.
>>
>> Yes, this is an "official" way how ICH4 (and later) advertises the region.
>
> The quirk is a bug workaround, *not* the "official, planned" way to
> deal with these regions. The official way is to use ACPI, because
> that's a generic way that doesn't require changes for new versions
> of ICH.
Ok, I understand that. For non-ACPI setups this is probably the only
place to look at.
Anyway, has anybody had a chance to look at the patches? Any comments,
nacks/acks?
https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/1/14/115
https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/1/14/113
https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/1/14/114
thanks,
--
js
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 10:55:01 +0100
Jiri Slaby <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 01/14/2011 05:10 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Friday, January 14, 2011 03:31:16 am Jiri Slaby wrote:
> >> On 01/14/2011 01:15 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I think we're back to the question of why we have the ICH4 quirk in
> >>>> the first place, and I don't know the answer to that.
> >>>
> >>> Iirc, there were several laptops that didn't have the ACPI region
> >>> mentioned in any of the regular places, and we'd allocate the PCMCIA
> >>> IO region on top of them. The machine would boot, but if anybody ever
> >>> inserted a PCCard into the machine, the first access to the IO region
> >>> would generally just halt it (because it was trying to read the
> >>> PCCard, but the APCI region decodes first, and then the read from that
> >>> usually put the CPU in a sleep state that it would never wake up from
> >>> for obvious reasons).
> >>>
> >>> So we do want the ICH4 quirk.
> >>
> >> Yes, this is an "official" way how ICH4 (and later) advertises the region.
> >
> > The quirk is a bug workaround, *not* the "official, planned" way to
> > deal with these regions. The official way is to use ACPI, because
> > that's a generic way that doesn't require changes for new versions
> > of ICH.
>
> Ok, I understand that. For non-ACPI setups this is probably the only
> place to look at.
>
> Anyway, has anybody had a chance to look at the patches? Any comments,
> nacks/acks?
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/1/14/115
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/1/14/113
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/1/14/114
I don't have a problem making the quirk quirkier, but it would be nice
to get rid of the need for it entirely (though we can leave that to
Bjorn :). Can you re-submit these three against my linux-next branch?
Thanks,
--
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
On 02/08/2011 10:20 PM, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 10:55:01 +0100
> Jiri Slaby <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 01/14/2011 05:10 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>> On Friday, January 14, 2011 03:31:16 am Jiri Slaby wrote:
>>>> On 01/14/2011 01:15 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we're back to the question of why we have the ICH4 quirk in
>>>>>> the first place, and I don't know the answer to that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Iirc, there were several laptops that didn't have the ACPI region
>>>>> mentioned in any of the regular places, and we'd allocate the PCMCIA
>>>>> IO region on top of them. The machine would boot, but if anybody ever
>>>>> inserted a PCCard into the machine, the first access to the IO region
>>>>> would generally just halt it (because it was trying to read the
>>>>> PCCard, but the APCI region decodes first, and then the read from that
>>>>> usually put the CPU in a sleep state that it would never wake up from
>>>>> for obvious reasons).
>>>>>
>>>>> So we do want the ICH4 quirk.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, this is an "official" way how ICH4 (and later) advertises the region.
>>>
>>> The quirk is a bug workaround, *not* the "official, planned" way to
>>> deal with these regions. The official way is to use ACPI, because
>>> that's a generic way that doesn't require changes for new versions
>>> of ICH.
>>
>> Ok, I understand that. For non-ACPI setups this is probably the only
>> place to look at.
>>
>> Anyway, has anybody had a chance to look at the patches? Any comments,
>> nacks/acks?
>>
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/1/14/115
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/1/14/113
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/1/14/114
>
> I don't have a problem making the quirk quirkier, but it would be nice
> to get rid of the need for it entirely (though we can leave that to
> Bjorn :). Can you re-submit these three against my linux-next branch?
Ok, I can. But do you want solution 113 or 114 -- they solve the same,
but in a different manner?
thanks,
--
js