From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Oct 29 02:26:41 2010
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: acpi@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E8C0106564A;
	Fri, 29 Oct 2010 02:26:41 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from smithi@nimnet.asn.au)
Received: from sola.nimnet.asn.au (paqi.nimnet.asn.au [115.70.110.159])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE52F8FC14;
	Fri, 29 Oct 2010 02:26:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sola.nimnet.asn.au (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id o9T1xQ4o054667;
	Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:59:27 +1100 (EST)
	(envelope-from smithi@nimnet.asn.au)
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:59:26 +1100 (EST)
From: Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au>
To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <201010281254.39862.jhb@freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <20101029124821.B33417@sola.nimnet.asn.au>
References: <201010281254.39862.jhb@freebsd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Cc: acpi@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Removing acpi.ko support
X-BeenThere: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: ACPI and power management development <freebsd-acpi.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi>,
	<mailto:freebsd-acpi-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-acpi>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-acpi-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi>,
	<mailto:freebsd-acpi-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 02:26:41 -0000

On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, John Baldwin wrote:
 > [ cc'ing acpi@ to be safe, but I think the topic warrants the wider audience 
 > of arch@ ]

Dropping arch@ for this probably dumb question ..

 > I think we should drop support for having acpi load as a module for i386.  It 
 > adds extra complication and hacks to the i386 APIC and interrupt code that are 
 > gratuitously different from amd64 as a result.  Originally it was made a 
 > module so that GENERIC on i386 did not include ACPI by default but would only 
 > use up memory to hold ACPI-related code if the machine supported ACPI.  Now 
 > that acpi is part of GENERIC on i386 in 8.0 and later this argument is no 
 > longer relevant.  I'd like to remove support for ACPI as a module to remove 
 > the various hacks on i386 and reduce differences with amd64.

Just checking: this wouldn't impede loading apm and not enabling acpi 
for older machines (esp. laptops) that work ok with APM but not ACPI?

cheers, Ian