Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 11:11:44 -0800 From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@freebsd.org>, freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: acpi problems with IBM/Lenovo/ThinkCentre Message-ID: <44171570.8070901@root.org> In-Reply-To: <200603141034.39801.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <E1FJAFJ-000JOd-8q@cs1.cs.huji.ac.il> <200603141034.39801.jhb@freebsd.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
John Baldwin wrote: > On Tuesday 14 March 2006 09:11, Danny Braniss wrote: >>> On Tuesday 14 March 2006 02:34 am, Danny Braniss wrote: >>>> ACPI-1304: *** Error: Method execution failed >>>> [\\_SB_.PCI0.LPC0.SIO_.COMA._ STA] (Node 0xffffff0000b8fc40), >>>> AE_AML_ALIGNMENT >>>> ACPI-0239: *** Error: Method execution failed >>>> [\\_SB_.PCI0.LPC0.SIO_.COMA._ STA] (Node 0xffffff0000b8fc40), >>>> AE_AML_ALIGNMENT >>>> ... >>> Fixing these requires a MFC of changes to ACPI-CA to not require strict >>> alignment for amd64. The ACPI-CA in 6.x requires strict alignment for >>> all 64-bit archs because ia64 requires it, but that has since been fixed >>> in current, just not MFC'd apparently. >> assuming that there will be more amd64 than ia64, can the >> ACPI_MISALIGNED_TRANSFERS >> be defined by default, and only undefed for ia64? > > As I mentioned, it's already fixed in current and in the vendor ACPI-CA > sources. We just need to backport that change to RELENG_6. Hmm, Intel > actually changed the whole flag around (changed it to a different one > with an inverted sense). Probably best to just sync up ACPI-CA in > RELENG_6 with ACPI-CA in head. Nate, what do you think? Unfortunately, the ACPI-CA in -current (and the latest from the vendor) have a small memory leak so we can't MFC until that is found and fixed. -- Natehome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44171570.8070901>