Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 07:47:35 -0700 From: "Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@intel.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, Timothy Mukaibo <tinkysama@mukaibo.com>, Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "Brown, Len" <len.brown@intel.com>, "freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org" <freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua>, "Lin, Ming M" <ming.m.lin@intel.com> Subject: RE: ACPI Panic on Current, AMD64 Message-ID: <4911F71203A09E4D9981D27F9D8308582E3194B4@orsmsx503.amr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <200905280800.24867.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <49159824-57EB-4628-9F1C-CE9243465D02@mukaibo.com> <200905271725.44235.jhb@freebsd.org> <849F0899-7AD9-4D7A-B849-D7FB36CE73AE@mukaibo.com> <200905280800.24867.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This problem sounds familiar. In ACPICA, we found an issue where the _CRS r= eturns an extended IRQ descriptor, but it gets optimized to an IRQNoFlags d= escriptor before the template is sent to _SRS. This causes problems on some= machines. We fixed this and actually made a clarification to the ACPI spec= ification that the _SRS template buffer must contain identical descriptors = as returned from the _CRS template. This change was made in ACPICA version = 20080213. BZ 9487 is the Linux sighting. 13 February 2008. Summary of changes for version 20080213: Fixed a problem where resource descriptor size optimization could cause a=20 problem when a _CRS resource template is passed to a _SRS method. The _SRS= =20 resource template must use the same descriptors (with the same size) as=20 returned from _CRS. This change affects the following resource descriptors:= =20 IRQ / IRQNoFlags and StartDependendentFn / StartDependentFnNoPri. (BZ 9487) >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd- >acpi@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of John Baldwin >Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 5:00 AM >To: Timothy Mukaibo >Cc: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org; freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Andriy Gapon >Subject: Re: ACPI Panic on Current, AMD64 > >On Thursday 28 May 2009 2:59:16 am Timothy Mukaibo wrote: >> Hello guys, >> >> I'm not sure if I made this clear, but the board boots with 7.2- >> Stable. Have there been lots of ACPI changes between 7.2 and 8.0 that >> might have caused this regression? > >No, and the ACPI pci_link code has in fact not changed since 7.0 aside fro= m >a >few minor fixes for suspend/resume that do not affect boot (and those were >merged into 7.1). I do wonder if perhaps there have been any changes in >the >ACPI-CA code. Hmm, ACPI-CA is identical in the two versions. All of the >resource code is identical as well. > >-- >John Baldwin >_______________________________________________ >freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org mailing list >http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi >To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-acpi-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4911F71203A09E4D9981D27F9D8308582E3194B4>