From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Aug 17 20:28:26 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F4AF106567B for ; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 20:28:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rpaulo@gmail.com) Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.190]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 646638FC28 for ; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 20:28:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rpaulo@gmail.com) Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id h3so1273330nfh.33 for ; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 13:28:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:cc:subject :message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent:sender; bh=GR0jym0ibIrFs+Cp9Fez/pCPaOVn3UZE34X7c+4NVw4=; b=lMQ2B2P+iIOGgLI31Q43G4GRTVwit9uEa7PJESoe6D8GmLYKhT1vzJ/Tvy4Boob8Vu tyVMrWPrtMwEU4rjDd9HfW2QeRVedeYrUSF+4HW/flWSGa/T1vsB00IR5TIJLjw46cxU OcJLl7tW4IqGSgphYwdts2SMAIIut5cNI5oWQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent:sender; b=HpMISU6BiAwKCFGA3eiIBFZIH6rwLu30xzrKsH7JDIH4ZH7tXu+3xi7BXU+VhQNe2u oHHkklXK+dNsBiuqnWgOi7RI2ibAWj4FqhNqtDUrz/CjCobjtD9l6+vhMLsp9axJBVcs UQLtAFdu/pPn6s0RdEU1MYSc8BVKI3HN5H234= Received: by 10.210.34.5 with SMTP id h5mr6914184ebh.84.1219004903680; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 13:28:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from epsilon.local ( [89.214.147.50]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i6sm19827424gve.2.2008.08.17.13.28.20 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 17 Aug 2008 13:28:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 21:28:16 +0100 From: Rui Paulo To: Zbigniew Baniewski Message-ID: <20080817202816.GB1013@epsilon.local> References: <480C0DEF.2030707@root.org> <20080421095156.GA5263@sarge.my.own.domain.no-net> <58AFE814-343F-4F83-94DA-A2979180C512@FreeBSD.org> <20080424171712.GA5180@sarge.my.own.domain.no-net> <20080424234921.GR92261@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <48114123.3000708@root.org> <20080815141355.GA5116@sarge.my.own.domain.no-net> <20080815155953.GA5044@sarge.my.own.domain.no-net> <20080816225146.GP25055@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <20080816231154.GA6333@sarge.my.own.domain.no-net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080816231154.GA6333@sarge.my.own.domain.no-net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: Rui Paulo Cc: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Problem with ACPI using Abit BE6-II V2.0 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, 17 Aug 2008 20:28:26 -0000 On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 01:11:54AM +0200, Zbigniew Baniewski wrote: > On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 08:51:46AM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote: > > > >So there's obviously something ACPI-related broken in 7.0, which works > > >in earlier versions. > > > > This doesn't follow at all. A more reasonable explanation is that 7.0 > > is more reliant on correctly implemented ACPI than older versions of > > FreeBSD > > ...so it has been broken in 7.0, while it was working before - and it > doesn't work by now. The rest is just semantics. > > Do you really want to say, it has been done quite intentionally? If so - > it's not good idea to entirely remove the well-tested code, which was > allowing to use more hardware without a need to disable some useful > features. > > But if it really is the case - I can't understand Nate's "join the team" > encouragement. There's nothing to fix, if "nothing's broken". > > > and so the breakage in your ACPI is more obvious. Your mobo > > is very old and probably includes only the minimal information needed > > to make MS Windoze work. > > ...and FreeBSD 5.3/6.2. > > > The easiest work-around is to disable ACPI. > > Yes, currently I had to. It's not the fact that something is not broken. Something is broken and it's your hardware, from what I can see. We can develop workarounds in software for bad hardware implementations, but, generally, these need to be well tested and, usually, those folks that have the bad hardware are those who develop the patches. Regards, -- Rui Paulo