From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 3 19:07:37 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.org Received: from [127.0.0.1] (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B456710656A6; Fri, 3 Sep 2010 19:07:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org) From: Jung-uk Kim To: freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.org Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 15:07:26 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <20100901042852.P29840@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <20100903114418.I32216@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <4C80962F.1080700@icyb.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <4C80962F.1080700@icyb.net.ua> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201009031507.29477.jkim@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Andriy Gapon , Ian Smith Subject: Re: acpi shows wrong battery state (fwd) X-BeenThere: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: ACPI and power management development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 19:07:37 -0000 On Friday 03 September 2010 02:31 am, Andriy Gapon wrote: > on 03/09/2010 06:01 Ian Smith said the following: > > But that's really an aside from the real issue you identify > > below, and perhaps also some TZ value/s being 'absurd' .. > > Let's try to not mix these things together just yet. > acpi_hp/acpi_wmi problems should not affect acpi_ec in any way. > (the converse could be true, but let's not go there yet...) Uh... If I am reading acpi_wmi.c correctly, it installs its own version of EC handler and EC is directly read/written via ACPI_EC_READ() and ACPI_EC_WRITE() from there. Apparently, it just bypasses EC serialization and "affects" EC. Am I reading it wrong? BTW, it is kinda messy way to handle EC. :-( Jung-uk Kim