Hello,
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 10:17:54AM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
> From: Aaron Lu
> Subject: [PATCH 2/2] ata: acpi: rework the ata acpi bind support
Applied to libata/for-3.12 w/ Dirk's tested-by added.
Thanks!
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubs
Hello Aaron,
On Do, Aug 22, 2013 at 03:15:16 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
> Hi Drik,
> Can you please test the two patches regarding your ATA bay? Thanks.
No problems with the bay. I applied the patches on top of 3.11-rc6.
Regards,
Dirk
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linu
On 08/23/2013 03:02 PM, Dirk Griesbach wrote:
> Hello Aaron,
>
> On Do, Aug 22, 2013 at 03:15:16 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
>> Hi Drik,
>> Can you please test the two patches regarding your ATA bay? Thanks.
>
> No problems with the bay. I applied the patches on top of 3.11-rc6.
Thanks a lot for the
scribe what's tested and what's not but should be okay in
> the patch description?
Sure, thanks for the hint.
Updated patch below.
From: Aaron Lu
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] ata: acpi: rework the ata acpi bind support
Binding ACPI handle to SCSI device has several drawbacks, namely:
1 Dur
Hello, Aaron.
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 03:15:16PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
> The patch series has two patches and the first has been taken, shall I
> send the 2nd one again without the RFC tag in the patch subject? There
> should be no other changes at the moment.
Yes, that was a request for you to
On 08/15/2013 11:19 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Aaron.
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 09:33:28AM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
>> This has been quiet for some time, may I know your opinion on this?
>
> Ooh, I like it. I was waiting for proper patch series w/o RFC tag and
> hopefully some test results.
T
Hello, Aaron.
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 09:33:28AM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
> This has been quiet for some time, may I know your opinion on this?
Ooh, I like it. I was waiting for proper patch series w/o RFC tag and
hopefully some test results.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: s
On 07/25/2013 10:52 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 01:47:03PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
>> Binding ACPI handle to SCSI device has several drawbacks, namely:
>> 1 During ATA device initialization time, ACPI handle will be needed
>> while SCSI devices are not created yet. So each time
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 10:52:29AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> I like it but am wondering why we weren't doing this before. Was the
> acpi support added before we made ata objects proper devices?
Yes.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "uns
On Friday, July 26, 2013 09:37:09 AM Aaron Lu wrote:
> On 07/25/2013 10:52 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 01:47:03PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
> >> Binding ACPI handle to SCSI device has several drawbacks, namely:
> >> 1 During ATA device initialization time, ACPI handle will be need
On 07/25/2013 10:52 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 01:47:03PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
>> Binding ACPI handle to SCSI device has several drawbacks, namely:
>> 1 During ATA device initialization time, ACPI handle will be needed
>> while SCSI devices are not created yet. So each time
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 01:47:03PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
> Binding ACPI handle to SCSI device has several drawbacks, namely:
> 1 During ATA device initialization time, ACPI handle will be needed
> while SCSI devices are not created yet. So each time ACPI handle is
> needed, instead of retrievi
Binding ACPI handle to SCSI device has several drawbacks, namely:
1 During ATA device initialization time, ACPI handle will be needed
while SCSI devices are not created yet. So each time ACPI handle is
needed, instead of retrieving the handle by ACPI_HANDLE macro,
a namespace scan is performe
13 matches
Mail list logo
