On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 01:04:31AM +0100, Andreas Mohr wrote:"Whatever" indeed: There's an ASL Match() for a "PMPT" (Primary Master PorT) PCI register, and the possible register values are: Package (0x04) { 0x20, 0x31, 0x65, 0xA8 }, and from OperationRegion (CFG2, PCI_Config, 0x40, 0x20) Field (CFG2, DWordAcc, NoLock, Preserve) { Offset (0x08),· SSPT, 8,· SMPT, 8,· PSPT, 8,· PMPT, 8,· Offset (0x10),· ... we can infer that at PCI_Config offset 0x48 those values should be located. However after bootup or resume there are: # lspci -s 00:11.1 -xxx 00:11.1 IDE interface: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82C586A/B/VT82C686/A/B/VT823x/A/C PIPC Bus Master IDE (rev 06) 00: 06 11 71 05 07 00 90 02 06 8a 01 01 00 20 00 00 10: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 20: 01 e4 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 06 11 71 05 30: 00 00 00 00 c0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ff 01 00 00 40: 0b 32 09 0a 18 1c c0 00 99 99 20 20 ff 00 a8 20 50: 07 07 f6 f1 14 03 00 00 a8 a8 a8 a8 00 00 00 00 60: 00 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 70: 02 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 82 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 80: 00 e0 a1 1f 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 90: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 a0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 b0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 c0: 01 00 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 d0: 06 00 71 05 06 11 71 05 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 e0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 f0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 07 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 As one can see, the relevant values for SSPT, SMPT, PSPT and PMPT are 99 99 20 20, which are not quite entirely valid judging from the array above, and this is because the secondary port is unused, as can also be seen from my bootup log: scsi0 : pata_via scsi1 : pata_via ata1: PATA max UDMA/133 cmd 0x1f0 ctl 0x3f6 bmdma 0xe400 irq 14 ata2: PATA max UDMA/133 cmd 0x170 ctl 0x376 bmdma 0xe408 irq 15 ata1.00: ATA-5: WDC WD1200JB-00CRA1, 17.07W17, max UDMA/100 ata1.00: 234441648 sectors, multi 16: LBA ata1.01: ATAPI: TOSHIBA DVD-ROM SD-M1612, 1004, max UDMA/33 Switched to high resolution mode on CPU 0 ata1.00: configured for UDMA/100 ata1.01: configured for UDMA/33 ACPI Exception (exoparg2-0442): AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT, Index (0FFFFFFFF) is beyond end of object [20070126] ACPI Error (psparse-0537): Method parse/execution failed [\_SB_.PCI0.IDE0.GTM_] (Node df80b9a8), AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIM IT ACPI Error (psparse-0537): Method parse/execution failed [\_SB_.PCI0.IDE0.CHN1._GTM] (Node df80b8d0), AE_AML_PACKAG E_LIMIT ata2: ACPI get timing mode failed (AE 0x300d) Manually tweaking the values to 20 20 20 20 truly does skip the _GTM failure message on suspend - only to reappear right on resume due to 99 99 20 20 combo happening again. If I don't tweak, I get _GTM failure at both suspend and resume. As such one can conclude that this BIOS is rather very confused when being called for _GTM on an entirely unused controller port. And this is either because the BIOS is dumb or because ACPI doesn't really expect anyone to call _GTM on an unused physical port. I'd bet on the latter... (however I haven't found ACPI 3.0b explicitly mentioning this somewhere yet) Andreas Mohr --
| Theodore Tso | Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 -- sys_fallocate |
| Jeff Garzik | Re: [RFC] Heads up on sys_fallocate() |
| Erez Zadok | [UNIONFS] 00/42 Unionfs and related patches review |
| Roland Dreier | Re: Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
git: | |
| Jon Smirl | Re: VCS comparison table |
| Andy Parkins | svn:externals using git submodules |
| Daniel Berlin | Re: Git and GCC |
| Sam Vilain | [PATCH] git-mergetool: add support for ediff |
| Richard Stallman | Real men don't attack straw men |
| Paul de Weerd | Re: Porting OpenBSD to OLPC XO laptops. |
| sonjaya | openvpn on openbsd 4.1 |
| Adliger Martinez von der Unterschicht | linux kills laptop hard drive... how does obsd behave? |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 0/37] dccp: Feature negotiation - last call for comments |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Andrew Morton | Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 11144] New: dhcp doesn't work with iwl4965 |
| Arjan van de Ven | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
