Andreas Mohr wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 02:20:01AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
Does this report now win me the lucky draw, pretty please? ;)
nah, you have to cc the acpi guys to get a prize ;)
Thought so shortly, but missed it.
Andreas, please do separately report that WOL
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 12:46:57AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
Please post full kernel boot log and the result of 'lspci -nn'.
Done, on #9530.
Will try some of the promising patches/suggestions now, hopefully this will
show me what's up. Will add further results there.
Andreas Mohr
-
To
Hi,
[ACPI _GTM suspend issue sorta fixed, read below]
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 12:24:16PM -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ACPI Exception
Hi,
On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 10:36:42PM +0100, Andreas Mohr wrote:
And the second, possibly much more lucrative, question would be
whether we're actually doing something wrong with our ACPI _GTM execution
which triggers the AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT problem.
This might help here, perhaps
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 01:04:31AM +0100, Andreas Mohr wrote:
IOW, it seems very likely that _GTM on these BIOSes (VIA chipsets) isn't
actually wrongly implemented but simply expects IDE controller values
to have been set up differently.
Or... one could possibly even infer from this that -
Andreas Mohr wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 01:04:31AM +0100, Andreas Mohr wrote:
IOW, it seems very likely that _GTM on these BIOSes (VIA chipsets) isn't
actually wrongly implemented but simply expects IDE controller values
to have been set up differently.
Or... one could possibly even infer
Andreas Mohr wrote:
As such one can conclude that this BIOS is rather very confused when being
called for _GTM on an entirely
unused controller port. And this is either because the BIOS is dumb or
because ACPI doesn't really
expect anyone to call _GTM on an unused physical port. I'd bet on
Robert Hancock wrote:
And you're quite right in your comment that we are often too quick to
blacklist hardware instead of looking into why it really is failing.
ACPI is one of those areas where we often just need to figure out how to
be bug-to-bug compatibile with what Windows is doing..
In
Tejun Heo wrote:
Robert Hancock wrote:
And you're quite right in your comment that we are often too quick to
blacklist hardware instead of looking into why it really is failing.
ACPI is one of those areas where we often just need to figure out how to
be bug-to-bug compatibile with what Windows
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 02:20:01AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 11:12:57 +0100 Andreas Mohr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ACPI Exception (exoparg2-0442): AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT, Index (0) is
beyond end of object [20070126]
ACPI Error (psparse-0537): Method
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 11:12:57 +0100 Andreas Mohr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 01:36:31AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
Subject : PATA scan: ACPI Exception AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT... is
beyond end of object
Submitter : Hans de Bruin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 02:20:01AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
Does this report now win me the lucky draw, pretty please? ;)
nah, you have to cc the acpi guys to get a prize ;)
Thought so shortly, but missed it.
Andreas, please do separately report that WOL problem too..
Local setup
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ACPI Exception (exoparg2-0442): AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT, Index (0) is
beyond end of object [20070126]
ACPI Error (psparse-0537):
Robert Hancock wrote:
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ACPI Exception (exoparg2-0442): AE_AML_PACKAGE_LIMIT, Index
(0) is beyond end of object [20070126]
ACPI
14 matches
Mail list logo
