From owner-freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 18 17:58:04 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8356816A4DA for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:58:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from server.baldwin.cx (66-23-211-162.clients.speedfactory.net [66.23.211.162]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B38BB43D49 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:58:03 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from localhost.corp.yahoo.com (john@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by server.baldwin.cx (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k6IHvtsC055247; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:57:58 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) From: John Baldwin To: Bruno Ducrot Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:46:19 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 References: <20060716141100.ee18d21a.torfinn.ingolfsen@broadpark.no> <200607171138.04979.jhb@freebsd.org> <20060718132019.GT17014@poupinou.org> In-Reply-To: <20060718132019.GT17014@poupinou.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200607181346.20117.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.2 (server.baldwin.cx [127.0.0.1]); Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:58:00 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.87.1/1604/Tue Jul 18 11:41:03 2006 on server.baldwin.cx X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=4.2 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on server.baldwin.cx Cc: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Acer Aspire AS5672 laptop - acpi problems X-BeenThere: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile computing with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:58:04 -0000 On Tuesday 18 July 2006 09:20, Bruno Ducrot wrote: > On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 11:38:04AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > > On Monday 17 July 2006 10:55, Bruno Ducrot wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 04:27:09PM +0200, Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote: > > > > On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:59:27 +0200 > > > > Bruno Ducrot wrote: > > > > > > > > > Maybe you can try without ACPI and without APIC? > > > > > > > > I've already tried without acpi. I will dig out the incantation for > > > > disabling the apic and try that. > > > > Is there any use in testing both together (ie. no acip + no apic)? > > > > Or is that just nonsense? > > > > > > With ACPI, the interrupt for the bge is 17, and without it's 18. > > > Maybe it should be really 17 instead of 18? > > > > > > Therefore trying with atpic instead of apic may solve at least > > > a bad interrupt routing for this device if apic is used. > > > > You can force the IRQ to 18 in the non-ACPI case via a tunable in the loader: > > > > hw.pci4.0.INTA.irq=18 > > > > Odd, I only see dmesg's with ACPI enabled (which have IRQ 18), I've yet to > > find one with ACPI disabled. Ah found it an earlier thread which has 17 for > > the !ACPI case. So try it with ACPI disabled and the above tunable. Also, > > it should work with both ACPI and APIC disabled. > > I don't see how this tunable (irq 18) can work if APIC is disabled, > shouldn't this tunable lesser than 16 in that case? Yes, I was intending it for the case where ACPI is disabled but APIC is enabled. The last sentence is confusing I guess. The system should just work without the tunable with both ACPI and APIC disabled is what I meant. -- John Baldwin