Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 20:35:42 -0500 From: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r204877 - head/sys/modules/acpi/acpi Message-ID: <201003082035.43977.jkim@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <201003081752.20087.jkim@FreeBSD.org> References: <201003081940.o28JeVG1088074@svn.freebsd.org> <201003081725.59267.jhb@freebsd.org> <201003081752.20087.jkim@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 08 March 2010 05:52 pm, Jung-uk Kim wrote: > On Monday 08 March 2010 05:25 pm, John Baldwin wrote: > > On Monday 08 March 2010 5:11:42 pm Jung-uk Kim wrote: > > > On Monday 08 March 2010 04:11 pm, John Baldwin wrote: > > > > On Monday 08 March 2010 2:40:31 pm Jung-uk Kim wrote: > > > > > Author: jkim > > > > > Date: Mon Mar 8 19:40:31 2010 > > > > > New Revision: 204877 > > > > > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/204877 > > > > > > > > > > Log: > > > > > Enable ACPI module build on amd64. Although we strongly > > > > > recommend building it into kernel, there is no need to > > > > > prevent it from building at all. > > > > > > > > (Oops, ignore previous spurious reply). > > > > > > > > Please revert this. The MADT parser on amd64 is slightly > > > > different from i386 and will not work when acpi is loaded as > > > > a module. If anything, I would prefer we make acpi not be a > > > > module on i386. There are several things that would be far > > > > less invasive to implement via #ifdef DEV_ACPI than by > > > > defining runtime kobj interfaces to the ACPI driver. > > > > > > madt.c itself is not very different but I understand what you > > > are trying to explain here. In fact, I tested it before > > > committing and the trick was adding mptable in place of acpi. > > > It worked fine although it may not be ideal. I can back out > > > sys/modules/acpi/Makefile change if you agree, however. > > > > It is different enough. Specifically, the amd64 one sets a > > "better" value for mp_maxid than i386, but it can only do this > > because it can run before SI_SUB_KLD since it is never invoked as > > a module. I still think that we should probably be moving away > > from acpi.ko rather than towards for other reasons. > > I noticed that and I used mptable instead, which seems to do well > enough for the job. Please keep in mind that I am not trying to > promote acpi.ko at all. I just want to make sure acpi.ko can be > built and loaded without builing and installing the whole > world/kernel for i386 to test new ACPICA. :-( > > Any way, I will just revert sys/modules/acpi/Makefile change, then. > It should be a reasonable compromise, deal? I thought you complained because I accidentally committed my local changes to sys/modules/acpi/Makefile. In fact, I didn't. :-) Do you still think I should back it out? Or is it okay? Jung-uk Kim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201003082035.43977.jkim>