From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 11 21:11:02 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 6B8C816A418; Sun, 11 Jun 2006 21:11:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nate@root.org) Received: from ylpvm43.prodigy.net (ylpvm43-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.57.74]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03C3143D48; Sun, 11 Jun 2006 21:11:01 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from nate@root.org) Received: from pimout7-ext.prodigy.net (pimout7-int.prodigy.net [207.115.4.147]) by ylpvm43.prodigy.net (8.12.10 outbound/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k5BLB24Q005674; Sun, 11 Jun 2006 17:11:04 -0400 X-ORBL: [71.139.104.128] Received: from [10.0.5.50] (ppp-71-139-104-128.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [71.139.104.128]) by pimout7-ext.prodigy.net (8.13.6 out.dk/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k5BLAvRT164798; Sun, 11 Jun 2006 17:10:58 -0400 Message-ID: <448C867B.3010708@root.org> Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 14:09:15 -0700 From: Nate Lawson User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jung-uk Kim References: <1182686709.20060605133201@akavia.ru> <200606062022.59336.jkim@FreeBSD.org> <121000959.20060607154424@akavia.ru> <200606071524.07284.jkim@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200606071524.07284.jkim@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Alexander Logvinov , freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Machine did not reboot 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: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 21:11:02 -0000 Jung-uk Kim wrote: > On Wednesday 07 June 2006 01:44 am, Alexander Logvinov wrote: >>>> RB_AUTOBOOT is defined as 0 in sys/reboot.h. I don't think this >>>> test will ever work: >>>> if ((howto & RB_AUTOBOOT) != 0 && >>>> AcpiGbl_FADT->ResetRegSup) { >>> It's little radical but what do you think about the attached >>> patch? I don't think we have to call AcpiTerminate() to reboot >>> at all. In fact, I have a box which does not reboot. Writing >>> ACPI_DISABLE to SMI_CMD hangs the system and it does not support >>> RESET_REG. :-( If I don't call AcpiTerminate(), everything's >>> fine. >> I'll try this patch soon, thanks. > > I don't know what ACPI spec. says (I guess I'll have to look it up) > but Linux doesn't seem to use it except for ACPI init failure case. > Now I have another evil hack (attached). It will help rebooting > without RESET_REG support and/or with broken BIOS. Basically, it > just bypasses AcpiDisable(), which may cause hang when ACPI_DISABLE > through SMI_CMD is issued. Thanks for both your efforts. I've committed and MFCd a patch that does the same things. I left out Jung-uk's hack because it's better just to not run AcpiTerminate at all than grovel in its internals. -- Nate