Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 28 May 2009 07:47:35 -0700
From:      "Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@intel.com>
To:        John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, Timothy Mukaibo <tinkysama@mukaibo.com>, Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        "Brown, Len" <len.brown@intel.com>, "freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org" <freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua>, "Lin, Ming M" <ming.m.lin@intel.com>
Subject:   RE: ACPI Panic on Current, AMD64
Message-ID:  <4911F71203A09E4D9981D27F9D8308582E3194B4@orsmsx503.amr.corp.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <200905280800.24867.jhb@freebsd.org>
References:  <49159824-57EB-4628-9F1C-CE9243465D02@mukaibo.com> <200905271725.44235.jhb@freebsd.org> <849F0899-7AD9-4D7A-B849-D7FB36CE73AE@mukaibo.com> <200905280800.24867.jhb@freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This problem sounds familiar. In ACPICA, we found an issue where the _CRS r=
eturns an extended IRQ descriptor, but it gets optimized to an IRQNoFlags d=
escriptor before the template is sent to _SRS. This causes problems on some=
 machines. We fixed this and actually made a clarification to the ACPI spec=
ification that the _SRS template buffer must contain identical descriptors =
as returned from the _CRS template. This change was made in ACPICA version =
20080213. BZ 9487 is the Linux sighting.


13 February 2008. Summary of changes for version 20080213:

Fixed a problem where resource descriptor size optimization could cause a=20
problem when a _CRS resource template is passed to a _SRS method. The _SRS=
=20
resource template must use the same descriptors (with the same size) as=20
returned from _CRS. This change affects the following resource descriptors:=
=20
IRQ / IRQNoFlags and StartDependendentFn / StartDependentFnNoPri. (BZ 9487)


>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
>acpi@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of John Baldwin
>Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 5:00 AM
>To: Timothy Mukaibo
>Cc: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org; freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Andriy Gapon
>Subject: Re: ACPI Panic on Current, AMD64
>
>On Thursday 28 May 2009 2:59:16 am Timothy Mukaibo wrote:
>> Hello guys,
>>
>> I'm not sure if I made this clear, but the board boots with 7.2-
>> Stable. Have there been lots of ACPI changes between 7.2 and 8.0 that
>> might have caused this regression?
>
>No, and the ACPI pci_link code has in fact not changed since 7.0 aside fro=
m
>a
>few minor fixes for suspend/resume that do not affect boot (and those were
>merged into 7.1).  I do wonder if perhaps there have been any changes in
>the
>ACPI-CA code.  Hmm, ACPI-CA is identical in the two versions.  All of the
>resource code is identical as well.
>
>--
>John Baldwin
>_______________________________________________
>freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org mailing list
>http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi
>To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-acpi-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4911F71203A09E4D9981D27F9D8308582E3194B4>