Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2018 12:07:18 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: acpi@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 227191] Cannot check battery status after upgrading to 12-CURRENT after r330957 (ACPI _STA method removed) Message-ID: <bug-227191-16045-4dAUNXF7w5@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-227191-16045@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-227191-16045@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D227191 --- Comment #19 from Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> --- I am curious if anyone who had this problem before still has it. Especially, I am curious if they had an error message like in comment#1 and= if that message went way. In addition to the prior analysis I'd like to add the following summary. - before base r330957 we ignored any _STA evaluation failure (which was performed in ACPICA contrib code) for the purpose of acpi_DeviceIsPresent a= nd acpi_BatteryIsPresent - ACPICA 20180313 stopped evaluating _STA altogether - so, we added evaluation of _STA to acpi_DeviceIsPresent and acpi_BatteryIsPresent - one important difference is that now we ignore a failure only if _STA does not exist (AE_NOT_FOUND) - any other kind of failure is treated as a failure - apparently, on some systems we can get AE_NOT_EXIST when evaluating _STA - that error is not an evil twin of AE_NOT_FOUND, despite a very similar na= me, but a distinct error related to a missing handler for embedded controller (= EC) address space - it's possible that for some people the problem was fixed by some changes = in ACPICA and/or acpi_ec that fixed the AE_NOT_EXIST failure Still, I would like to re-iterate my proposal that we restore full pre-r330= 957 behaviour by ignoring any _STA error. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-227191-16045-4dAUNXF7w5>