Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 11:54:04 -0400 From: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Cc: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Subject: Re: new ACPI warning after update to 9-current Message-ID: <200910011154.06892.jkim@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20091001080657.83133zg3oit7zj8k@webmail.leidinger.net> References: <20090930135815.15151g7ho1epevgg@webmail.leidinger.net> <200909301918.45942.jkim@FreeBSD.org> <20091001080657.83133zg3oit7zj8k@webmail.leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday 01 October 2009 02:06 am, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Quoting Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org> (from Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:18:44 -0400): > > On Wednesday 30 September 2009 07:58 am, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> after updating form 8-beta2 to current (r197613) I get the > >> following new message while booting: > >> ---snip--- > >> ACPI Warning: Detected an unsupported executable opcode at > >> module-level: [0x7B] at table offset 0x94 (20090903/psloop-630) > >> ACPI Warning: Detected an unsupported executable opcode at > >> module-level: [0x7B] at table offset 0x99 (20090903/psloop-630) > >> ---snip--- > >> > >> Anything I should provide additionally? What does it mean (the > >> non-obvious meaning and the implications for the system)? > > > > New ACPICA added partial support for executable at module level, > > which is illegal by specification and previously ignored without > > warning. Unfortunately many BIOSes out there has broken DSDT/SSDT > > because Windows ACPI interpreter does not care although it is > > illegal since ACPI 2.0. I say "partial" because only three > > opcodes are supported at module level ATM, i.e., If, Else, and > > While. Basically, it is telling you that unsupported opcode is > > found at module level. For more info, see the following commit: > > > > http://git.moblin.org/cgit.cgi/acpica/commit/?id=80d7951177315f70 > >b5ffd8663985fbf725d07799 > > So > - my BIOS is broken Yes (but it's Microsoft Windows logo worthy). ;-) > - it is doing more than before but not all it should do > (according to the BIOS) Correct. > - as the system was working before and working now, I do > not need to worry Correct. > After reading the commit log it looks like they want to support > more in the future. Feel free to implement it and let us know if you find some free time. :-) Jung-uk Kim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200910011154.06892.jkim>