Hi Greg, Mirosław Zalewski wrote[1]: > When kernel is invoked with ACPI support, it has various problems with USB > detection [...] > When finally booted, at least wireless driver (ath9k) > does not work. I heard that sound does not work as well, but haven't > tested it myself. With ACPI enabled, kernel is unable to shutdown computer > properly. [...] > This is known flaw of Toshiba Satellite C650/kernel. You can find various > posts around the net about it. > > Toshiba Satellite C650 comes in four variants: > PSC08E > PSC10E > PSC12E > PSC14E [...] > In July there was a BIOS update for 12E and 14E. The new BIOS is version 1.5 > and it is said to fix ACPI issues on Linux [3]. Unfortunetly there is no new > BIOS for 08E and 10E machines. Mirosław confirmed that cherry-picking the following six patches on top of your linux-2.6.32.y tree brings his machine back to sanity: 729df0f848da (ACPICA: Add detection of corrupted/replaced DSDT, 2010-04-01) 69ec87efa815 (ACPICA: Add subsystem option to force copy of DSDT to local memory, 2010-04-01) 43323cb4c4b6 (ACPICA: Update DSDT copy/detection, 2010-04-07) aa2110cb1a75 (ACPI: add boot option acpi=copy_dsdt to fix corrupt DSDT, 2010-04-08) cce4f632db20 (ACPI: fix early DSDT dmi check warnings on ia64, 2010-05-12) 100cf87788c0 (ACPI: invoke DSDT corruption workaround on all Toshiba Satellite, 2010-09-28) Patches 1-5/6 have been in Debian squeeze since last September and seem to work well. Patch 6/6 turns on acpi=copy_dsdt by default for additional machines that need it, including Mirosław's. The DMI pattern in 6/6 overreaches a little in my opinion --- it would be better to look at a BIOS version number or something instead. But it is what was done in mainline, and false positives should be harmless. I have tested on my PSC16U (which has BIOS 1.60 and doesn't need the workaround) that I get TOSHIBA Satellite detected - force copy of DSDT to local memory and no other noticeable side-effect. The patches apply cleanly to linux-2.6.32.y except for patch 2/6, which has a boring textual conflict with the inverse of 4cdf1a5 (and the obvious conflict resolution works). Patches 1-5/6 hit mainline in v2.6.35-rc1~477. Patch 6/6 is v2.6.36-rc7~25^2^5. Anyway, I think these make good candidates for application to the 2.6.32.y longterm tree. What do you think? Regards, Jonathan [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=55;bug=598104 > [3] - http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=9622930#post9622930 -- 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
