From owner-freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org Thu Dec 6 12:07:22 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-acpi@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA498132A5F1 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 12:07:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40BA68EA54 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 12:07:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id F2FFF132A5E6; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 12:07:21 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: acpi@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8549132A5E2 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 12:07:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org (mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 267E48EA52 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 12:07:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43BAF192F6 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 12:07:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id wB6C7Kqa028813 for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 12:07:20 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id wB6C7K6V028808 for acpi@FreeBSD.org; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 12:07:20 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f 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) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2018 12:07:18 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: misc X-Bugzilla-Version: CURRENT X-Bugzilla-Keywords: needs-qa, patch, regression X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Many People X-Bugzilla-Who: avg@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: acpi@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: mfc-stable12? X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 40BA68EA54 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-0.57 / 15.00]; local_wl_from(0.00)[freebsd.org]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.09)[-0.086,0]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.53)[-0.529,0]; NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(0.05)[0.049,0]; ASN(0.00)[asn:10310, ipnet:2001:1900:2254::/48, country:US] X-Rspamd-Server: mx1.freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: ACPI and power management development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2018 12:07:22 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D227191 --- Comment #19 from Andriy Gapon --- 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.=