> On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 6:55 AM, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 06:21:54 +0000 "Justin Mattock" <justinmattock@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Well; I was hoping it was going to be just an easy fix, but unfortunately
>>> changing
>>> if (atomic_read(&ec->irq_count) > 5) {
>>> to
>>> if (atomic_read(&ec->irq_count) > 20) {
>>> does seem to make the message disappear, for a while, probably at
>>> around three hours,(for me at least) then the message appeared again.
>>> :-(
>>> So leaving me back to the beginning of try to have a go at this.
>>> regards;
>> I removed bugzilla from cc - that only works if there's [Bug 1234] in
>> the Subject:.
>>
>> I added linux-acpi to cc - this is an acpi problem.
>>
>> What Justin is mysteriously referring to here is:
>>
>>
>> : From: "Justin Mattock" <justinmattock@gmail.com>
>> : To: "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
>> : Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
>> : Subject: GPE storm detected, disabling EC GPE
>> : Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 21:01:55 +0000
>> : Sender:
linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
>> :
>> : FWIW I noticed a post where the person had changed 5 to 20, and it
>> : seemed to work for them;
>> : So with that in mind I decide to give that a go, here is the location:
>> : drivers/acpi/ec.c
>> : @@ -527,47 +488,51 @@ static u32 acpi_ec_gpe_handler(void *data)
>> : {
>> : acpi_status status = AE_OK;
>> : struct acpi_ec *ec = data;
>> : u8 state = acpi_ec_read_status(ec);
>> :
>> : pr_debug(PREFIX "~~~> interrupt\n");
>> : atomic_inc(&ec->irq_count);
>> : - if (atomic_read(&ec->irq_count) > 5) {
>> : + if (atomic_read(&ec->irq_count) > 20) {
>> : pr_err(PREFIX "GPE storm detected, disabling EC GPE\n");
>> : ec_switch_to_poll_mode(ec);
>> : goto end;
>> : }
>> :
>> : Now I don't know if this will work for other brands, but for
>> : me(Macbook Pro ATI chipset) I have not received the
>> : GPE storm detected, disabling EC GPE message, but it's only been an
>> : hour, maybe after two or three this might appear.
>> : Also is this good or bad to set 5 to 20 for the system?
>>
>> Could someone from acpi land please help here?
>>
>> Justin, has this machine always had this problem or is it something
>> which earlier kernels handled correctly?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>
> This issue just recently started, 2.6.25-rc9 and below don't give me
> this message.
>
