From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 1 17:08:50 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2A8816A420 for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2005 17:08:50 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from speedfactory.net (mail6.speedfactory.net [66.23.216.219]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D6D643D58 for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2005 17:08:50 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from server.baldwin.cx (unverified [66.23.211.162]) by speedfactory.net (SurgeMail 3.5b3) with ESMTP id 2948479 for multiple; Thu, 01 Dec 2005 12:06:42 -0500 Received: from localhost (john@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jB1H8dLP090530; Thu, 1 Dec 2005 12:08:39 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) From: John Baldwin To: George Mitchell Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 11:55:46 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 References: <200512010134.jB11YigV038775@m5p.com> In-Reply-To: <200512010134.jB11YigV038775@m5p.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-6" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200512011155.47057.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=4.2 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on server.baldwin.cx X-Server: High Performance Mail Server - http://surgemail.com r=1653887525 Cc: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Compaq R3120US, was Re: ACPI + FIC VA-503+ = non-working fdc X-BeenThere: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: ACPI and power management development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:08:51 -0000 On Wednesday 30 November 2005 08:34 pm, George Mitchell wrote: > > Well, the IRQs are the same for both. However, it is quite weird. With > > ACPI, we see from your BIOS that your ppc0 device is using IRQ 5, and > > several PCI devices are using IRQ 7 (include re0). Without ACPI, both > > the printer and the PCI devices end up using IRQ 7 (this should _not_ > > happen). Try removing the hints for ppc0 so it is probed by the PNP BIOS > > rather than via hints and see if the IRQ moves from 7 to 5 for your > > non-ACPI case. Then, check to see if you get the same timeout issues. > > You can also try going into your BIOS and changing the LPT settings to > > use IRQ 7 rather than IRQ 5 as IRQ 7 is more "standard". > > There were no ppc hints to change, so I reconfigured it in the BIOS to > IRQ 7. (I'm sure I had a reason to configure it on IRQ 5 at some point > long ago, but I don't remember why.) This did not change the behavior > of the board. And at this point, I would just as soon run with ACPI > disabled, since I don't know what I would gain by having it enabled. You had to have hints because your non-ACPI kernel was using IRQ 7 (wrong) for ppc0 rather than IRQ 5. Are you sure your /boot/device.hints was empty? Anyways, once you moved the LPT IRQ to 7, did the PCI IRQs change such that re0 is on 5 now instead of 7? > It's another story on another machine I havem where ACPI is working > much better of 6.0-RELEASE than it had been under 5.4-RELEASE: a Compaq > R3120US. I'm getting only three ACPI errors on this machine, whose > dmesg output is at: > > http://www.m5p.com/~george/dmesg-6.0-R3120US.txt > > Should I try to do anything about these lines: > > acpi0: reservation of 62, 2 (4) failed > acpi0: reservation of 65, b (4) failed > acpi_tz0: _CRT value is absurd, ignored (200.0C) > > or can I just ignore them? -- George I think you can ignore them. -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org