Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 19 Sep 2004 23:19:53 -0700
From:      Nate Lawson <nate@root.org>
To:        Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net>
Cc:        freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: trouble overriding DSDT
Message-ID:  <414E7689.80703@root.org>
In-Reply-To: <20040919215548.GA37391@dhcp44.pn.xcllnt.net>
References:  <37F890616C995246BE76B3E6B2DBE05502071306@orsmsx403.amr.corp.intel.com> <414CA156.7040606@root.org> <20040919163706.GA904@trimind.de> <414DF52E.1030109@root.org> <20040919215548.GA37391@dhcp44.pn.xcllnt.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 02:07:58PM -0700, Nate Lawson wrote:
> 
>>The right fix I think is to disable SSDT loading if we've overridden the 
>>DSDT.  Bob, what do you think?  Marcel, we should fix this for 5.3R 
>>because it will prevent people from using custom ASL easily.  Another 
>>quick fix would be to put a comment block around the disassembled SSDT 
>>so it is there for inspection but doesn't affect recompilation.
> 
> 
> Tricky. The advantage of SSDTs is that it allows you to modularize,
> which means that one may want to be able to override a single SSDT.
> In that case, overriding the DSDT does not automaticly imply that
> none of the SSDTs should be loaded.
> 
> If by default we do load SSDTs when overriding the DSDT (like we happen
> to do now by coincidence), we should not dump any SSDTs by default in
> acpidump(8) and vice versa. This also means that we should be able to
> just dump some SSDT and override just some SSDT.
> 
> If overriding is acceptable to be an all or nothing approach, then
> acpidump(8) behaves correctly and we just need to stop loading SSDTs
> when the DSDT is overridden.

Overriding is only for debugging or for known-bad machines.  So I think 
it's acceptable for the user to pass a combined/hacked DSDT+SSDT and 
have it override all DSDT/SSDT tables.  This is the way I'd like to 
handle this.

For now, I think it makes sense to put the SSDT in a comment block in 
acpidump(8) so that recompiling and overriding works properly and the 
SSDT is still available for examining.  We can do the first fix in 
-current but we need something for 5.3.

Objections?

> I prefer the flexibility and given that we currently do load SSDTs, it
> makes sense to at least enhance acpidump(8) to make dumping the SSDTs
> optional when dumping the DSDT. Irrespective of what we'll do in the
> future. This would be a good compromise to put in 5.3R...

I'd like to still dump it but comment it out.  This gives the info in 
the SSDT but points out that it's read-only.

-Nate



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?414E7689.80703>