From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 8 03:55:17 2006 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 EB76E16A422 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2006 03:55:16 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from harmony.bsdimp.com (vc4-2-0-87.dsl.netrack.net [199.45.160.85]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAA6A43D53 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2006 03:55:13 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1] (may be forged)) by harmony.bsdimp.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k183rU6j069667; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 20:53:30 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 20:53:30 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <20060207.205330.41703277.imp@bsdimp.com> To: duncan.fbsd@gmail.com From: Warner Losh In-Reply-To: <200602071611.45274.duncan.fbsd@gmail.com> References: <20060207203340.7C5F945041@ptavv.es.net> <200602071611.45274.duncan.fbsd@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0 (harmony.bsdimp.com [127.0.0.1]); Tue, 07 Feb 2006 20:53:31 -0700 (MST) Cc: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Kernel panic with ACPI enabled 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: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 03:55:17 -0000 From: "Donald J. O'Neill" Subject: Re: Kernel panic with ACPI enabled Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 16:11:44 -0600 > On Tuesday 07 February 2006 14:33, Kevin Oberman wrote: > > > From: "Donald J. O'Neill" > > > Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 14:13:06 -0600 > > > Sender: owner-freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org > > > > > > On Tuesday 07 February 2006 13:04, John Baldwin wrote: > > > > On Tuesday 07 February 2006 13:37, Donald J. O'Neill wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday 07 February 2006 09:48, John Baldwin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have a few things. Is there a reason you have 'device apm'? > > > > > Are you trying to use APM and ACPI at the same time? Why do you > > > > > have 'device isa' rather than 'device eisa'? Where you, by any > > > > > chance, just re-using your conf file from 5.x? It kind of looks > > > > > that way. Have you looked at i386/conf/NOTES? There is some > > > > > more information in there. > > > > > > > > device isa is normal, and he probably just commented out eisa > > > > since modern systems don't have EISA slots. The apm thing won't > > > > hurt, though it probably adds a small bit of bloat to the kernel. > > > > If you have both apm and acpi then acpi will be used if it is > > > > present, otherwise if acpi is not present (or is disabled) then > > > > apm will be used. > > > > > > Hi John, > > > > > > It seems to me that eisa was an extension to isa and that most > > > modern computers don't have an isa bus but have eisa bus instead, > > > In fact I have a Gateway Computer (500Mhz PIII) that has an eisa > > > slot on the MB. Actually most modern computers don't physically > > > have a slot for either isa or eisa. Quite possibly either one would > > > work. I have 'device eisa' in my conf, it's also 'device eisa' in > > > the GENERIC conf which is why I mentioned it. > > > > While it is an extension of the ISA system, it is not something that > > can be used with the same drivers as ISA. They are completely > > separate devices. And almost all systems have ISA devices, even > > though they have not ISA slots. For example, the mouse and keyboard > > are ISA devices. In V&, ISA gets built into the kernel whether you > > have it in your config file or not because too many people assumed > > that they didn't need it and built broken kernels. Yes, it is > > possible (and easy) to build a kernel without the ISA device, but it > > requires modifying another file that is used by config.) > > > > Also, some systems will fail to boot if the EISA driver is in the > > kernel. Rare, but becoming more common as EISA gets rarer. > > Thank you Kevin, > > Quite a good, simple, easy to understand explanation. So, since I don't > have 'device isa' in my conf, but I do have 'device eisa', is this > going to at some point become a problem? Do you think I should change > that around? That I might be better off doing it that way? device isa is mandatory. Remove eisa and add back isa and you'll be a heck of a lot happier. Warner