Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 15:51:11 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org, Rong-En Fan <rafan@infor.org> Subject: Re: acpi as kernel module on i386 Message-ID: <BFBCDEB4-E7F6-4E73-A65A-3A7BA51DDA87@xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <200605021559.44121.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <20060502181804.GA93421@svm.csie.ntu.edu.tw> <200605021559.44121.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On May 2, 2006, at 12:59 PM, John Baldwin wrote: > On Tuesday 02 May 2006 14:18, Rong-En Fan wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Recently commit to ppc code that also decouples the isa+acpi >> attachment into separate case, that makes my ppc and lpt disappear >> if acpi is loaded as a module. (see the thread "lpt0 disappear (ppc >> related) on -current) >> >> However, i386/conf/NOTES says that building acpi into module is >> deprecated. Just wondering why amd64 uses acpi in kernel conf >> (I'm not sure about other arch), and on i386 we said this is a >> deprecated usage? > > ACPI is mandatory for amd64 and ia64, but it is optional on i386. > Because it is optional, it is a module so that the loader can only > load it on machines that support it. I think the ppc module should > be changed to include the acpi attachment personally, assuming that > the ppc module already includes the ppc isa attachment. On i386, it should be safe to compile the acpi(4) attachment when only device isa is configured into the kernel. It should not be done for all platforms. While acpi(4) is mandatory on ia64, isa(4) isn't and it's my goal to get rid of isa(4) altogether on ia64. Alternatively, acpi(4) can be considered non-optional for current x86 hardware and having acpi(4) configured into the kernel is not such an odd thing to do for a modern x86 operating system. -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BFBCDEB4-E7F6-4E73-A65A-3A7BA51DDA87>