From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 28 00:30:01 2005 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 22F3216A41F for ; Fri, 28 Oct 2005 00:30:01 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org) Received: from anuket.mj.niksun.com (gwnew.niksun.com [65.115.46.162]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB48743D45 for ; Fri, 28 Oct 2005 00:30:00 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org) Received: from niksun.com (anuket [10.70.0.5]) by anuket.mj.niksun.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j9S0cTC6065700; Thu, 27 Oct 2005 20:38:29 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org) From: Jung-uk Kim To: freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.org Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 20:29:47 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <971FCB6690CD0E4898387DBF7552B90E0323D7B6@orsmsx403.amr.corp.intel.com> <200510271744.17558.jkim@FreeBSD.org> <43616BFF.1040709@root.org> In-Reply-To: <43616BFF.1040709@root.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200510272029.48815.jkim@FreeBSD.org> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV devel-20050919/1149/Thu Oct 27 16:20:09 2005 on anuket.mj.niksun.com X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: Mathieu Prevot Subject: Re: ACPI errors on amd64 (sempron) 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: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 00:30:01 -0000 On Thursday 27 October 2005 08:08 pm, Nate Lawson wrote: > Jung-uk Kim wrote: > > It's already fixed in (soon to be imported) ACPICA-20051021 code. > > There's no way we can get acpi-ca tested in -current and MFC'd > before 6.0. Instead, we should MFC just the logic Intel changed in > the header file to 6.0. IMHO, I think there's not enough time to do any fix at this point. I think we should fix it *after* 6.0-RELEASE because it only fixes half of his problem. In fact, I have seen somebody else had similar problem: http://bsdforum.or.kr/viewtopic.php?p=5414#5414 It's Korean BSD User Forum but you may be able to read this: pci_link26: BIOS IRQ 10 for -2145771032.1.INTA is invalid pci_link21: BIOS IRQ 11 for -2145771032.2.INTA is invalid pci_link27: BIOS IRQ 3 for -2145771032.2.INTB is invalid pci_link23: BIOS IRQ 10 for -2145771032.10.INTA is invalid pci_link24: BIOS IRQ 11 for -2145771032.4.INTA is invalid pci_link29: BIOS IRQ 11 for -2145771032.7.INTA is invalid pci_link30: BIOS IRQ 10 for -2145771032.8.INTA is invalid Jung-uk Kim