From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751172AbWGGDrm (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jul 2006 23:47:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751174AbWGGDrm (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jul 2006 23:47:42 -0400 Received: from smtp108.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.198.207]:9649 "HELO smtp108.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751172AbWGGDrl (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jul 2006 23:47:41 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 20:47:35 -0700 From: Chris Wedgwood To: Andrew Morton Cc: "Scott J. Harmon" , vsu@altlinux.ru, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: acpi gets wrong interrupt for via sata in 2.6.16.17 Message-ID: <20060707034735.GA12908@tuatara.stupidest.org> References: <449DE6BA.2050206@ksu.edu> <20060625132457.4b0922b4.vsu@altlinux.ru> <44A1C78C.4090401@ksu.edu> <44ADAB1F.6040208@ksu.edu> <20060706181453.3ce5a1c5.akpm@osdl.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060706181453.3ce5a1c5.akpm@osdl.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 06:14:53PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > I have both reversion patches queued up but haven't heard from > anyone about anything. i saw that --- i don't think it's right, but it's not more wrong than having that merged as-is in the first place which i'll argue is wrong by virtue of the fact we run the quirk everywhere and apparently break things > I don't know if anyone's working on this bug. it's not forgotten, i'm waiting to hear back from people still. enabling ACPI *should* suffice, but for some people clearly it doesn't (there are claims VIA got their ACPI wrong so this might explain why it works for some people and not others) > Thursday is my subsystem-maintainer-spamming day, so the reverts > will be heading Gregwards today. like i said, i really don't think reverting the patches is technically correct, but given that i don't have adequate hardware to test against it might be the least painful option right now