From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 16 20:58:00 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A651516A4CE for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:58:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: from moutvdomng.kundenserver.de (moutvdom.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.249]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 732EF43D1F for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:58:00 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from liamfoy@sepulcrum.org) Received: from [212.227.126.224] (helo=mrvdomng.kundenserver.de) by moutvdomng.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BahT8-0007bS-00; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 22:57:14 +0200 Received: from [81.154.134.17] (helo=Anarion) by mrvdomng.kundenserver.de with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1BahT8-0003MR-00; Wed, 16 Jun 2004 22:57:14 +0200 Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 21:57:08 +0100 From: "Liam J. Foy" To: "M. Warner Losh" 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> Organization: None X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.9 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd5.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: acpi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: apm problem X-BeenThere: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: ACPI and power management development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:58:00 -0000 On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 14:52:57 -0600 (MDT) "M. Warner Losh" wrote: > In message: <20040616213946.6f7def3d.liamfoy@sepulcrum.org> > Liam Foy 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