2013-10-16 02:16 keltezéssel, Robert Hancock írta:
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Levente Kurusa <levex@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 2013-10-13 07:57 keltezéssel, Robert Hancock írta:
>>> On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 3:29 AM, Levente Kurusa <levex@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> 2013-10-12 04:06 keltezéssel, Robert Hancock írta:
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Levente Kurusa <levex@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> 2013-10-01 06:25 keltezéssel, Robert Hancock írta:
>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Robert Hancock <hancockrwd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Levente Kurusa <levex@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 2013-09-28 06:55 keltezéssel, Robert Hancock írta:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Levente Kurusa <levex@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2013-09-25 08:31 keltezéssel, Robert Hancock írta:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 1:13 AM, Levente Kurusa <levex@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2013-09-21 19:04 keltezéssel, Robert Hancock írta:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Levente Kurusa <levex@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The following dmesg is stuck in an infinite loop.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dmesg:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ata3: lost interrupt (Status 0x50)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ata3.00: exception Emask 0x0 SAct 0x0 SErr 0x0 action 0x6
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frozen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ata3.00: failed command: READ DMA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ata3.00: cmd c8/00:08:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/e0 tag 0 dma 4096
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> res 40/00:00:00:00:00/00:00:00:00:00/00
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Emask
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0x4
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (timeout)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ata3.00: status: { DRDY }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ata3: soft resetting link
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ata3.00: configured for UDMA/33 (no error)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ata3.00: device reported invalid CHS sector 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ata3: EH complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Patch that fixes the infinite loop:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-eh.c b/drivers/ata/libata-eh.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> index f9476fb..eeedf80 100644
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-eh.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-eh.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -2437,6 +2437,14 @@ static void ata_eh_link_report(struct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ata_link
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *link)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ehc->i.action, frozen,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tries_buf);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (desc)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ata_dev_err(ehc->i.dev, "%s\n",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> desc);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + ehc->i.dev->exce_cnt ++;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + ata_dev_warn(ehc->i.dev, "Number of exceptions:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> %d\n",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ehc->i.dev->exce_cnt);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + /**
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * The device is failing terribly,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * disable it to prevent damage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + if(ehc->i.dev->exce_cnt > 2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + ata_dev_disable(ehc->i.dev);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } else {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ata_link_err(link, "exception Emask 0x%x
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "SAct 0x%x SErr 0x%x action
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0x%x%s%s\n",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/libata.h b/include/linux/libata.h
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> index eae7a05..fa52ee6 100644
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/include/linux/libata.h
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/libata.h
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -660,7 +660,8 @@ struct ata_device {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> u8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> devslp_timing[ATA_LOG_DEVSLP_SIZE];
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /* error history */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - int spdn_cnt;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + int spdn_cnt; /* Number of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed_downs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + int exce_cnt; /* Number of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exceptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happenned */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /* ering is CLEAR_END, read comment above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CLEAR_END
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> struct ata_ering ering;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This doesn't seem like a very good fix. It may prevent the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apparent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop but will just prevent that device from functioning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be better if we could figure out what was actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have tested the problem with three different computers, all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> switched
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to legacy/IDE/compatibility mode, and they didn't have this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course, they could have been set to AHCI mode, and there the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kernel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> boot normally. Feels strange, but so far I was only able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reproduce
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem with a Toshiba MK8052GSX. On the topic of my patch, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see why a device which fails so terribly that it reports 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exceptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shouldn't be disabled. Like in this case, it could cause infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loops.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that this could happen in some cases when you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to disable the device, like an error that just happens
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sporadically and works on retry, or a device you're trying to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recover
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data from.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think if I edit the patch in a way, that when an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> successfully completes, it resets exce_cnt to zero. Might as well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> add
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> module_param, which can set the maximum value of exce_cnt, while
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zero
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as an option to never disable the device. Please don't think me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't want to force this patch, I just want to learn how all this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the process try to make it better. :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That would be better, but I think you're still going to have an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with what magic number to pick to avoid disabling devices
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inappropriately.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conceptually, disabling the device doesn't really make sense anyway.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone in userspace wants to keep trying to read from that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> device,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why would you stop them because of some arbitrary judgement? The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kernel itself isn't "locked up" during this process, anything not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blocked on I/O to that device should be able to continue running, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that process is only hurting itself. If the system fails to boot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another device due to this, this would likely point out some kind of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem in userspace or the distro boot process being overly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> serialized.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have been booting up with the initramfs from ubuntu 13.04,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I have also tried to boot with the ubuntu install cd. They
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continue the boot process. I'm gonna spend the weekend trying to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> figure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out where and why the interrupts don't happen. Whether it be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> routing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or a hardware issue, which I highly doubt due to the fact that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Windows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> XP SP2 was able to boot up without errors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you able to get out full dmesg output from a boot attempt and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contents of /proc/interrupts?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said before, I am not able to get to the shell, without my
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'symptom
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cure'. With my patch I get the following dmesg output, with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> some of my debug messages turned off:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://pastebin.com/5eb5G3Dx
>>>>>>>>>>>>> /proc/interrupts is here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://pastebin.com/84CJey2D
>>>>>>>>>>>>> After yesterday's research, I have come to ata_piix.c . That file looks
>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the real culprit, as my netbook's controller is an Intel ICH7M one,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The values I am getting from the device are very different than those
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are expected.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Things I have noticed, but ignored in dmesg:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a stack dump, because nobody cared about IRQ#20. I have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this because it is the EHCI IRQ, and I suppose it has nothing to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ata. The problem is with ata3 or /dev/sdc, while the IRQ happens
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with /dev/sda, which works fine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it is likely related to the problem. The kernel thinks this
>>>>>>>>>>>> controller is on IRQ 16, but apparently something is raising
>>>>>>>>>>>> un-acknowledged interrupts on IRQ 20 and nothing is coming in on IRQ
>>>>>>>>>>>> 16. It seems quite likely that this is actually the ATA controller.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You mentioned that Windows XP was able to work in this mode. I wonder
>>>>>>>>>>>> if it was using the IOAPIC, as if not then the IRQ routing is
>>>>>>>>>>>> different which might mask the problem. Do you know what IRQ Device
>>>>>>>>>>>> Manager reported for this controller in Windows? And was it using any
>>>>>>>>>>>> IRQs over 15 (which would indicate the IOAPIC was in use)?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hmm, according to WinXP's Device manager for this controller,
>>>>>>>>>>> it listens to IRQ# 20, and therefore it is using the I/O APIC.
>>>>>>>>>>> Now, one question remains where is the error that mismaps
>>>>>>>>>>> controller?
>>>>>>>>>>> I have created a simple patch which seems to fix this:
>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -1704,6 +1767,8 @@ static int piix_init_one(struct pci_dev *pdev,
>>>>>>>>>>> const
>>>>>>>>>>> struct pci_device_id *ent)
>>>>>>>>>>> hpriv->map = piix_init_sata_map(pdev, port_info,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> piix_map_db_table[ent->driver_data]);
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> + if(pdev->vendor == 0x8086 && pdev->device == 0x27C4)
>>>>>>>>>>> + pdev->irq = 20;
>>>>>>>>>>> rc = ata_pci_bmdma_prepare_host(pdev, ppi, &host);
>>>>>>>>>>> if (rc)
>>>>>>>>>>> return rc;
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> However, I am more than sure that this is not the way
>>>>>>>>>>> to solve this problem. Do you have any idea on where
>>>>>>>>>>> the ideal place would be to implement a fix?
>>>>>>>>>>> According to specs of ICH7M, which is essentially the
>>>>>>>>>>> same as ICH6M, we need to check on what interrupt pin
>>>>>>>>>>> is the SATA controller, and after that check which IRQ line
>>>>>>>>>>> is connected to the I/O APIC and decide the IRQ's number
>>>>>>>>>>> on those findings.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Specs of ICH7:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.intel.com/content/dam/doc/datasheet/i-o-controller-hub-7-datasheet.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>> Device 31 Interrupt Route Register: Chapter 7.1.46
>>>>>>>>>>> Device 31 Interrupt Pin Register: Chapter 7.1.41
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The SATA controller is always Device 31.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It would appear that something is messing up with the ACPI IRQ routing
>>>>>>>>>> on this machine that's causing us to think the controller is on the
>>>>>>>>>> wrong IRQ. CCing the linux-acpi list to see if anyone has some
>>>>>>>>>> additional debugging suggestions. I suspect that dumping the DSDT is
>>>>>>>>>> likely the first step though. If you can get IASL installed, you can
>>>>>>>>>> do something like:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> cat /sys/firmware/acpi/tables/DSDT > dsdt.aml
>>>>>>>>>> iasl -d dsdt.aml
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That should spit out a dsdt.dsl file which would hopefully have the
>>>>>>>>>> info needed to figure out what's going on.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here is the disassembled DSDT table:
>>>>>>>>> http://pastebin.com/LWNVht9H
>>>>>>>>> The SATA controller is at line 5206.
>>>>>>>>> I also disassembled the SSDT, but nothing interesting was there:
>>>>>>>>> http://pastebin.com/fus5sxU8
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I disabled the usage of ACPI for IRQs with acpi=noirq,
>>>>>>>>> and it successfully booted up setting itself to IRQ#3.
>>>>>>>>> This makes me think that this is the BIOS's fault.
>>>>>>>>> I think it would be possible to create a DMI check
>>>>>>>>> and forcibly set the irq to 20 if the DMI matches.
>>>>>>>>> Any comments on this?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The BIOS may be doing something funky, but since Windows apparently
>>>>>>>> can figure out it's on IRQ 20, Linux presumably should be able to as
>>>>>>>> well. DMI checks should be the last resort - Windows almost certainly
>>>>>>>> doesn't have any machine-specific logic here, and it's hard to tell
>>>>>>>> what other machine models could be affected. With ACPI stuff, we
>>>>>>>> generally just need to do the same thing Windows does for things to
>>>>>>>> work reliably, and DMI checks are more of a hack workaround than a
>>>>>>>> real fix.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'll try and have a look at the DSDT within the next few days and see
>>>>>>>> if I can figure anything out, unless someone beats me to it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I haven't gone into too much detail, but one thing I noticed with the
>>>>>>> DSDT is that there appear to be some _OSI checks for Windows 2006
>>>>>>> (i.e. Vista) that seem to affect various things, including potentially
>>>>>>> the PCI IRQ routing table. It's possible that their IRQ routing table
>>>>>>> is broken for legacy mode with an ACPI OS supporting Vista (as current
>>>>>>> Linux versions do). Could be this slipped through testing if they only
>>>>>>> tested AHCI mode with Vista installed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can try booting with the kernel parameters
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> acpi_osi=! acpi_osi="Windows 2001 SP3"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That should make the BIOS think we are Windows XP and bypass the Vista
>>>>>>> code path. If that works, then you might want to check for a BIOS
>>>>>>> update on this machine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First of all, sorry for the late reply. I was kinda busy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I tried what you suggested but unfortunately the problem persists.
>>>>>> This makes me believe that Windows XP does have somekind of DMI check here.
>>>>>> Of course, while a BIOS update may solve this, I would prefer that Linux
>>>>>> should also be able to boot up with this broken BIOS as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you are certain that WinXP doesn't use DMI checks,
>>>>>> it could be that WinXP's driver of ICH7M's SATA controller applies
>>>>>> a quirk and sets that irq line to #20.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you post the dmesg output from a bootup attempt with those options?
>>>>>
>>>>> You may also want to try adding just: acpi_osi=!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> None of the 3 possible combinations succeeded to boot.
>>>>
>>>> Here are a couple of dmesgs:
>>>>
>>>> Params: acpi_osi="Windows 2001 SP3"
>>>> http://pastebin.com/vF3BSuhc
>>>>
>>>> Params: acpi_osi=! acpi_osi="Windows 2001 SP3"
>>>> http://pastebin.com/BuUzc3es
>>>>
>>>> Params: acpi_osi=!
>>>> http://pastebin.com/u7uRx8Ru
>>>
>>> I'm not sure the option is actually taking effect properly. There
>>> should be a message "Disabled all _OSI OS vendors" that shows up in
>>> dmesg with the ! option. Can you try:
>>>
>>> acpi_osi="!" acpi_osi="Windows 2001 SP3"
>>>
>>> (with the quotes around the ! character).
>>>
>>
>> The following command line worked:
>> acpi_osi= acpi_osi="Windows 2001 SP3"
>>
>> So, it seems that the BIOS is broken. Is there any way to fix this,
>> without resorting to the hackish DMI checks?
>
> Probably not really. Have you checked for a newer BIOS version on this machine?
>
> If not, this is likely similar to a number of other systems listed in
> acpi_osi_dmi_table in drivers/acpi/blacklist.c which need to disable
> reporting Vista support.
>
Yup, the attached patch fixed it.
I will post it a little bit later, mind if I add your signed-off-by line? :)
I would do a BIOS update and see if it was fixed there, but it seems that Toshiba's
BIOS updater and the BIOS itself causes more trouble than the problems fixed.
---
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/blacklist.c b/drivers/acpi/blacklist.c
index cb96296..34d4d1a 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/blacklist.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/blacklist.c
@@ -267,6 +267,14 @@ static struct dmi_system_id acpi_osi_dmi_table[] __initdata = {
DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_NAME, "Satellite P305D"),
},
},
+ {
+ .callback = dmi_disable_osi_vista,
+ .ident = "Toshiba NB100",
+ .matches = {
+ DMI_MATCH(DMI_SYS_VENDOR, "TOSHIBA"),
+ DMI_MATCH(DMI_PRODUCT_NAME, "NB100"),
+ },
+ },
/*
* BIOS invocation of _OSI(Linux) is almost always a BIOS bug.
--
Regards,
Levente Kurusa
--
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
