From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 19 15:12:17 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Received: from [127.0.0.1] (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72B341065677; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:12:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org) From: Jung-uk Kim To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:12:01 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <200809171147.m8HBlI7F082370@lurza.secnetix.de> <200809171144.48424.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <200809171144.48424.jhb@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200809191112.06765.jkim@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Oliver Fromme , John Baldwin Subject: Re: ACPI "blacklist" question X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:12:17 -0000 On Wednesday 17 September 2008 11:44 am, John Baldwin wrote: > On Wednesday 17 September 2008 07:47:18 am Oliver Fromme wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I have recently updated a machine to 7-stable. > > ACPI doesn't seem to work correctly on this machine. > > With earlier versions of FreeBSD (including the latest > > RELENG_6), I got this line in dmesg: > > > > ACPI disabled by blacklist. Contact your BIOS vendor. > > > > And everything was fine. The box runs perfectly well > > with ACPI disabled. (I can't get a BIOS update because > > the mainboard is too old.) > > > > When I updated to RELENG_7 a few days ago, the above line > > did _not_ appear anymore, and the machine didn't proceed > > to boot, so I had to travel to the console. :-( > > After disabling ACPI manually via boot.conf hint, it is > > up and running fine again. > > > > Now i'm wondering: Has the ACPI blacklist been removed > > intentionally, or is this a regression? Certainly I did > > not find any mentioning of it in UPDATING or anywhere > > else. > > This is a regression. Try this fix: > > Index: acpi_quirk.c > =================================================================== > --- acpi_quirk.c (revision 183112) > +++ acpi_quirk.c (working copy) > @@ -149,9 +149,9 @@ > if (ACPI_FAILURE(AcpiGetTableHeader(ACPI_SIG_FADT, 0, &fadt))) > bzero(&fadt, sizeof(fadt)); > if (ACPI_FAILURE(AcpiGetTableHeader(ACPI_SIG_DSDT, 0, &dsdt))) > - bzero(&fadt, sizeof(dsdt)); > + bzero(&dsdt, sizeof(dsdt)); > if (ACPI_FAILURE(AcpiGetTableHeader(ACPI_SIG_XSDT, 0, &xsdt))) > - bzero(&fadt, sizeof(xsdt)); > + bzero(&xsdt, sizeof(xsdt)); > > /* Then, override the quirks with any matched from table > signatures. */ for (entry = acpi_quirks_table; entry->match; > entry++) { Doh, that's my copy-and-pasto. Thanks for catching it! Jung-uk Kim