From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jan  3 15:20:22 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 D7D7E16A41F
	for <freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org>; Tue,  3 Jan 2006 15:20:22 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from ducrot@poupinou.org)
Received: from poup.poupinou.org (poup.poupinou.org [195.101.94.96])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 918A743D79
	for <freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org>; Tue,  3 Jan 2006 15:20:20 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from ducrot@poupinou.org)
Received: from ducrot by poup.poupinou.org with local (Exim)
	id 1Etnwo-0006bY-00; Tue, 03 Jan 2006 16:19:38 +0100
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 16:19:38 +0100
To: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org>
Message-ID: <20060103151938.GD13887@poupinou.org>
References: <c740cf110512211223s4b7d7c59n387b1dfedd62567b@mail.gmail.com>
	<20051222020349.GA16607@poupinou.org> <43AC2E52.8000304@root.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <43AC2E52.8000304@root.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
From: Bruno Ducrot <ducrot@poupinou.org>
Cc: freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.org, Gnu_Raiz <gnu.raiz@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Z00Q Problem Tyan MB!
X-BeenThere: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: ACPI and power management development <freebsd-acpi.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi>,
	<mailto:freebsd-acpi-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-acpi>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-acpi-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi>,
	<mailto:freebsd-acpi-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 15:20:23 -0000

On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 09:05:22AM -0800, Nate Lawson wrote:
> You can work around this problem with info from PR kern/89879
> 
> http://people.freebsd.org/~ariff/acer_ferrari/
> 
> A future acpica import may address this problem.  The aml is accessing a 
> field before it's defined.  The newest acpica adds support for lazy 
> evaluation (even though this is out of spec).

No, it won't.  There are the following devices:


	Device (SIO)
	{
		...
		...

		Method (STA, 1, NotSerialized)
		{
		...
		...
		}

		Device (COM1)
		{
			...
			Method (_STA, 0, NotSerialized)
			{
				Store (Z00Q, Local0)
				And (Local0, 0x01, Local0)
				If (LEqual (Local0, 0x01))
				{
					Return (0x00)
				}
				Else
				{
					Return (STA(0x02))
			}
		}

		Device (COM2)
		{
			...
			Method (_STA, 0, NotSerialized)
			{
				/* same _STA, but
				 * And (Local0, 0x02, Local0)
				 */
			...
		}


		Device (LPT)
		{
		
			...
			Method (_STA, ...)
			{
				/* same _STA, but different bits checked
				 */
			
			}
		}

Since all of those _STA methods call SIO.STA() (and since this method
is used to touch a part of a SuperIO chip (io port 0x2E, etc) in order
to initialize some devices), it's very likely that the 3 devices will not
function even if acpica does lazy evaluations for
non-existing object.  If I were the acpi maintainer of the intel acpica,
package, I would add a flag turned off per default.

For the OP.  I would suggest trying to add a Z00Q manually.

--- rcall-TyanMP2460.asl	2006/01/03 14:47:05	1.1
+++ rcall-TyanMP2460.asl	2006/01/03 15:10:58
@@ -1256,6 +1256,7 @@ DefinitionBlock ("DSDT.aml", "DSDT", 1, 
                 Device (SIO)
                 {
                     Name (_HID, EisaId ("PNP0A05"))
+                    Name (Z00Q, 1)    // bit 1: COM1, bit 2: COM2, bit 3: LPT
                     OperationRegion (Z00M, SystemIO, 0x80, 0x01)
                     Field (Z00M, ByteAcc, NoLock, Preserve)
                     {
@@ -2394,6 +2395,8 @@ DefinitionBlock ("DSDT.aml", "DSDT", 1, 
         }
 
         Notify (\_SB.PWRB, 0x02)
+
+        Return(Package(2){0,0})
     }
 }
 




and to change the value for Z00Q according to your needs (if you need
both serial ports, then it should be 3, etc).

Cheers,

-- 
Bruno Ducrot

--  Which is worse:  ignorance or apathy?
--  Don't know.  Don't care.