Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753718AbXLJAEs (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Dec 2007 19:04:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751197AbXLJAEh (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Dec 2007 19:04:37 -0500 Received: from rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de ([129.143.116.10]:44487 "EHLO rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751126AbXLJAEg (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Dec 2007 19:04:36 -0500 Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 01:04:31 +0100 From: Andreas Mohr To: Andreas Mohr Cc: Robert Hancock , Matthew Garrett , Andrew Morton , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , LKML , Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Tejun Heo , Len Brown , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.24-rc4-git5: Reported regressions from 2.6.23 Message-ID: <20071210000429.GA3916@rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de> References: <475AE150.9050306@shaw.ca> <20071209213642.GA27096@rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071209213642.GA27096@rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de> X-Priority: none User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1446 Lines: 39 Hi, On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 10:36:42PM +0100, Andreas Mohr wrote: > And the second, possibly much more lucrative, question would be > whether we're actually doing something wrong with our ACPI _GTM execution > which triggers the AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT problem. > > This might help here, perhaps (relevant snippets of AML dump): Indeed, after looking over this horrid ASL stuff for ages I'm now starting to believe that our IDE controller state is wrong, since the Match()ing etc. in this particular _GTM implementation is heavily dependant on actual PCI values (it references some PCI_Config OperationRegion:s), and some indexing seems to go wrong due to this. IOW, it seems very likely that _GTM on these BIOSes (VIA chipsets) isn't actually wrongly implemented but simply expects IDE controller values to have been set up ""differently"". Or... one could possibly even infer from this that - maybe - the _GTM invocation spot is wrong, it should be done somewhere different during bootup. Or whatever. This seems to tell me again that we're often quick to blacklist or whitelist things left and right when instead fundamental problems are hidden somewhere. Still investigating, Andreas Mohr -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/