Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 3 Feb 2006 19:46:35 +0100 | From | Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <> | Subject | Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support. |
| |
On 2/3/06, Randy.Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net> wrote: > On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > > On 2/3/06, Randy.Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net> wrote: > > > On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > > > > > > On 2/3/06, Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: > > > > > Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > This is untrue as Linux has support for setting IDE controller > > > > > > and drives. It was added by Benjamin Herrenschmidt in late > > > > > > 2.5.x or early 2.6.x (I don't remember exact kernel version). > > > > > > > > > > In generic_ide_resume, rqpm.pm_step gets set to > > > > > ide_pm_state_start_resume and ide_do_drive_cmd gets called. This ends up > > > > > being passed through to start_request. start_request waits for the BSY > > > > > bit to go away. On the affected hardware I've seen, this never happens > > > > > unless the ACPI calls are made. As far as I can tell, there's nothing in > > > > > the current driver code that does anything to make sure that the bus is > > > > > in a state to accept commands at this point - the pci drivers don't (for > > > > > the most part) seem to have any resume methods. Calling the ACPI _STM > > > > > method before attempting to do this magically makes everything work. > > > > > > > > I don't see anything that prevents addition of ->suspend and ->resume > > > > for IDE PCI host drivers (not IDE core issue) if some special sequence > > > > is needed. > > > > > > > > I see that we may be doing PIO/DMA setup too late (IDE core issue) > > > > for some controllers. > > > > > > > > Could you fill a bug at kernel bugzilla with data as much data about > > > > affected hardware as possible (dmesg, kernel config, lspci -vvv -xxx > > > > before susped and if possible PCI configuration dumped from kernel > > > > after suspend)? > > > > > > > > What is the current state of IDE ACPI patches? > > > > Were the issues raised on linux-ide addressed? > > > > > > I haven't seen any updates to the drivers/ide/ patch from > > > Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>. I'm beginning to work on > > > PATA ACPI object support that is similar to the current SATA ACPI > > > patches -- all for libata. Is this the right or wrong thing > > > to do? > > > > Working on patches is always right thing to do... 8) > > Of course. That wasn't really the question. 8;) > > > Just one remark: please try to make ACPI part > > as libata/SCSI independent as possible. > > You sort of replied obliquely to my "all for libata" comment. > These patches are all libata-specific.
Yes, developing for libata-only should be much easier to do. We can backport it to IDE if/when needed later.
Just a reminder so nobody gets a wrong idea: the above is in perfect harmony with my opinion wrt libata PATA support - IDE driver should evolve and be merged with libata (evolutionary vs revolutionary).
> At least they are SCSI-independent. :)
Well at least not directly. :)
Bartlomiej - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |