Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 02:20:01AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 11:12:57 +0100 Andreas Mohr <andi@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.GTF_] (Node c180b990), AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT
ACPI Error (psparse-0537): Method parse/execution failed [\_SB_.PCI0.IDE0.CHN0.DRV1._GTF] (Node c180b888), AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT
ata1.01: _GTF evaluation failed (AE 0x300d)
037f6bb79f753c014bc84bca0de9bf98bb5ab169 ought to have fixed this?
I should think it should have.
I think we're too aggressive about disabling the libata ACPI support,
even. One of my laptop's _GTF commands on resume is a DEVICE
CONFIGURATION FREEZE LOCK command, which gets rejected by the drive
(maybe it worked on the original Hitachi disk, but I've upgraded it to a
newer Samsung). I'd say if the drive returns command aborted on one of
these, we should just ignore that command and continue to the next one
without trying to retry or disabling the ACPI support entirely.
--
Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from hancockr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
