From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 28 00:56:56 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 0FA0416A41F; Fri, 28 Oct 2005 00:56:56 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from nate@root.org) Received: from www.cryptography.com (li-22.members.linode.com [64.5.53.22]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9944443D4C; Fri, 28 Oct 2005 00:56:55 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from nate@root.org) Received: from [10.0.0.33] (adsl-67-119-74-222.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net [67.119.74.222]) by www.cryptography.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j9S0usxq024836 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 27 Oct 2005 17:56:54 -0700 Message-ID: <4361774E.3010709@root.org> Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 17:56:46 -0700 From: Nate Lawson User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jung-uk Kim References: <971FCB6690CD0E4898387DBF7552B90E0323D7B6@orsmsx403.amr.corp.intel.com> <200510271744.17558.jkim@FreeBSD.org> <43616BFF.1040709@root.org> <200510272029.48815.jkim@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200510272029.48815.jkim@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.org, 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 00:56:56 -0000 Jung-uk Kim wrote: > 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. I disagree. It's very clear what the alignment requirements are on amd64 and that acpi-ca is being too strict, harming an actual implementation. > 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 Yes, I agree that this alone doesn't fix it. This looks to me like the pci_link code is pointing the interrupt source at the wrong part of the resource descriptor. Perhaps it is not incrementing the pointer correctly for 64-bit arches. -- Nate