Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 19:42:12 +0000 From: "Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@intel.com> To: "sbruno@freebsd.org" <sbruno@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org" <freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: AMT Activation ACPI warnings Message-ID: <94F2FBAB4432B54E8AACC7DFDE6C92E36FECEB7C@ORSMSX103.amr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <1377027160.1478.5.camel@localhost> References: <1376348029.1469.49.camel@localhost> <94F2FBAB4432B54E8AACC7DFDE6C92E36FECEB29@ORSMSX103.amr.corp.intel.com> <1377027160.1478.5.camel@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
It appears to be a vendor thing. However, still in direct violation of the = ACPI spec. > -----Original Message----- > From: Sean Bruno [mailto:sean_bruno@yahoo.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 12:33 PM > To: Moore, Robert > Cc: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org > Subject: RE: AMT Activation ACPI warnings >=20 > On Tue, 2013-08-20 at 19:20 +0000, Moore, Robert wrote: > > We have seen at least one video vendor that uses a Buffer object > > instead of the ACPI-required package object as the 4th _DSM argument. > > > > >=20 > The T520 has a Nvidia thingy in it. Is this something we need to deal > with in the BSD ACPI implementation or is this a vendor thing? >=20 > Sean
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?94F2FBAB4432B54E8AACC7DFDE6C92E36FECEB7C>