From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Jan 4 4:38: 5 2001 From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 4 04:38:03 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from citadel.cequrux.com (citadel.cequrux.com [192.96.22.18]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2097437B400 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 04:37:59 -0800 (PST) Received: (from nobody@localhost) by citadel.cequrux.com (8.8.8/8.6.9) id OAA25321 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:37:54 +0200 (SAST) Received: by citadel.cequrux.com via recvmail id 25178; Thu Jan 4 14:36:44 2001 Sender: gram@citadel.cequrux.com Message-ID: <3A545615.3597BCF3@cequrux.com> Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 12:53:09 +0200 From: Graham Wheeler Organization: Cequrux Technologies X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 3.4-RELEASE i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Just how standard is APM? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Hi all I'm running FreeBSD 4.2-S on a Compaq Presario laptop. This laptop seems to have APM support (at least it does under MS-Windows), but FreeBSD doesn't recognise it as such. I've gone so far as to add additional log messages in the kernel probes for the APM BIOS, and these log that the initial vm86 BIOS call to get the APM BIOS version fail. Is this really exceptional, or are there lots of unsupported APM BIOSes? I believe that APM is a WinTel `standard'; just how standard is it really? -- Dr Graham Wheeler E-mail: gram@cequrux.com Director, Research and Development WWW: http://www.cequrux.com CEQURUX Technologies Phone: +27(21)423-6065 Firewalls/VPN Specialists Fax: +27(21)424-3656 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message