Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 16:35:51 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: "Devin Teske" <dteske@vicor.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [UPDATE] New Boot-Loader Menu -- version 1.1 Message-ID: <201105031635.51247.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <004901cc09cf$1da33fe0$58e9bfa0$@vicor.com> References: <9B387DE4-6866-4208-A8FC-6516D651F6A5@vicor.com> <201105031519.40087.jhb@freebsd.org> <004901cc09cf$1da33fe0$58e9bfa0$@vicor.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday, May 03, 2011 4:17:23 pm Devin Teske wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John Baldwin [mailto:jhb@freebsd.org] > > Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 12:20 PM > > To: Devin Teske > > Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org > > Subject: Re: [UPDATE] New Boot-Loader Menu -- version 1.1 > > > > On Tuesday, May 03, 2011 2:57:34 pm Devin Teske wrote: > > > > From: John Baldwin [mailto:jhb@freebsd.org] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 10:33 AM > > > > To: Devin Teske > > > > Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Olivier SMEDTS > > > > Subject: Re: [UPDATE] New Boot-Loader Menu -- version 1.1 > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, May 03, 2011 12:31:14 pm Devin Teske wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 3, 2011, at 4:45 AM, John Baldwin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, May 02, 2011 8:48:31 pm Devin Teske wrote: > > > > > > > This version (1.1) works nearly identically to the standard > > > > > > > menu that ships with FreeBSD in that it detects whether ACPI > > > > > > > is enabled (truth be told, I actually re-used the "acpienabled?" > > > > > > > function verbatim from /boot/beastie.4th by Scott Long and > > > > > > > Aleksander Fafula). The ACPI detection of my boot loader > > > > > > > (version > > > > > > > 1.1 or higher) should be identical to the detection of the > > > > > > > current boot-loader. > > > > > > > > > > Ugh. By "current", I meant 8.1-RELEASE (wasn't expecting this > > > > > stuff to be different in HEAD, which it is). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Err, note that the acpienabled stuff is all different in HEAD > > > > > > than in 7/8 since acpi.ko no longer exists. You should use the > > > > > > scheme from HEAD for handling ACPI present vs ACPI enabled/disabled. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > John Baldwin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, I see the new "acpipresent?" word (which replaces the "arch-i386" > > > > > environment-test). Does this imply that we're going to support > > > > > ACPI on > > > > > non-i386 platforms (or already do)? > > > > > > > > amd64 and ia64 have always supported ACPI. ia64 effectively requires it. > > > > However, "hint.acpi.0.rsdp" is set by biosacpi.c in the i386 loader > > > > bits, so other platforms will not set it, so the arch-i386 test is > > > > no longer > > > needed. > > > > > > If "hint.acpi.0.rsdp" is only set in the i386 pieces, wouldn't that > > > imply that the "acpipresent?" would return FALSE on IA64? > > > > Yes. Right now the ACPI menu item is not displayed on ia64 and it never has > > been. You can't actually boot IA64 with ACPI disabled, so there's no reason > for it > > to be in the menu. > > This raises a concern for my menu. Unlike the current menu, which blanks-out > menuitem #2 for IA64, I've chosen instead to insert an inoperative menuitem with > the text "ACPI Support: N/A". Hmm, I think you should just leave the menu item blank or not listed. It doesn't make sense to see a knob about ACPI support on a ppc box for example, and other platforms may grow platform-specific knobs in the future as well. The current menu item is only blank as a hack to avoid renumbering the items. If you are already changing that around, then I'd just leave it out altogether unless ACPI is detected by the loader. > So what do you think I should do? > > a. Rewrite both "acpipresent?" and "acpienabled?" to be backward compatible with > 6.x/older or > b. embrace the future and simply warn about backward compatibility (or lack > thereof) with respect to ACPI support. > > NOTE: Route (a) may not be possible unless the loader_version was bumped at the > same time that hint.acpi.0.rsdp was added. (a) is not possible for the reason you mention. I wouldn't worry about supporting 6.x at this point, esp. if it is going to be a pain. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201105031635.51247.jhb>