On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:36:07AM -0600, Robert Hancock wrote: > On 02/26/2013 04:07 PM, Jan Sembera wrote: > > So I apparently missed two most important differences between good and bad > > boots. > > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 09:03:48PM +0100, Jan Sembera wrote: > >> [ 2.877438] scsi6 : pata_atiixp > >> [ 2.881369] scsi7 : pata_atiixp > >> > >> [ 2.391535] scsi6 : pata_acpi > >> [ 2.391994] scsi7 : pata_acpi > > > > pata-acpi doesn't play very well with this controller. Disabling it in > > kernel and rebooting (even with 3.8) provided completely working kernel. > > So either this driver shouldn't bind pata-acpi and leave it on pata-atiixp > > as before (some kind of blacklisting needed?), or it needs some fixing to > > work nicely with this controller. > > > > As a workaround for now, I'll just not compile PATA_ACPI into the kernel. > > What are your kernel config settings for these modules? The idea is that > pata_acpi is only supposed to get loaded if no other driver is able to > bind to the device. This is based on a config that Ubuntu uses for building vanilla kernels and has PATA_ACPI=y, PATA_ATIIXP=m. Which probably means that pata_acpi will grab the controller before pata_atiixp has any chance to do so. Which is probably bad and should be set to PATA_ACPI=m instead. Should this also be treated as a bug in pata_acpi, or is it expected that it's going to fail on some subset of motherboards/controllers and it's not worth bothering with fixing it, especially if there is some other driver that handles the controller fine? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
