Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 21:57:08 +0100 From: "Liam J. Foy" <liamfoy@sepulcrum.org> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: acpi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: apm problem Message-ID: <20040616215708.360cf786.liamfoy@sepulcrum.org> In-Reply-To: <20040616.145257.88000637.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20040616.135044.85075412.imp@bsdimp.com> <20040616.142323.91757134.imp@bsdimp.com> <20040616213946.6f7def3d.liamfoy@sepulcrum.org> <20040616.145257.88000637.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 14:52:57 -0600 (MDT) "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: > In message: <20040616213946.6f7def3d.liamfoy@sepulcrum.org> > Liam Foy <liamfoy@sepulcrum.org> writes: > : > +#define APM_UNKNOWN 0xff /* Unknown in APM BIOS spec */ > : > : Do you not mean 0xffffffff ? > > No. 0xff is the right number here. The problem is that there's a > number of different flag values, some which come directly from the APM > BIOS, and others that are generated by the drivers. Seems am confused. If they are returning 0xffffffff why are we testing for 0xff? > > : I agree with the ai_infoversion change above, and from your other > : mail about changing the number of batteries from 0 to -1. Has nate > : gave any feedback ? > > Not yet. He's recovering from a massive disk crash right now. That explains it ;) although he is some what alive. > > : I have also made some recent changes which have been commited which > : have changed the structure of the apm code. I am willing to change > : the code from >= 255 to == APM_UNKNOWN if it is decided this is what > : the correct way and it is agreeded upon. > > I have the changes in my tree, and will work with Nate to get the > right stuff committed. At the very least the 255's should be changed > to a meaningful constant. Right, keep me informed. > > Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040616215708.360cf786.liamfoy>