From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 7 22:12:00 2006 Return-Path: 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 E9C2B16A420 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 22:12:00 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from duncan.fbsd@gmail.com) Received: from smtp111.sbc.mail.re2.yahoo.com (smtp111.sbc.mail.re2.yahoo.com [68.142.229.94]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3703D43D46 for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 22:12:00 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from duncan.fbsd@gmail.com) Received: (qmail 3234 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2006 22:11:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.201?) (donaldj@ameritech.net@69.211.91.121 with plain) by smtp111.sbc.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Feb 2006 22:11:54 -0000 From: "Donald J. O'Neill" To: "Kevin Oberman" Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 16:11:44 -0600 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 References: <20060207203340.7C5F945041@ptavv.es.net> In-Reply-To: <20060207203340.7C5F945041@ptavv.es.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-14" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200602071611.45274.duncan.fbsd@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Kernel panic with ACPI enabled X-BeenThere: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: ACPI and power management development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 22:12:01 -0000 On Tuesday 07 February 2006 14:33, Kevin Oberman wrote: > > From: "Donald J. O'Neill" > > Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 14:13:06 -0600 > > Sender: owner-freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org > > > > On Tuesday 07 February 2006 13:04, John Baldwin wrote: > > > On Tuesday 07 February 2006 13:37, Donald J. O'Neill wrote: > > > > On Tuesday 07 February 2006 09:48, John Baldwin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I have a few things. Is there a reason you have 'device apm'? > > > > Are you trying to use APM and ACPI at the same time? Why do you > > > > have 'device isa' rather than 'device eisa'? Where you, by any > > > > chance, just re-using your conf file from 5.x? It kind of looks > > > > that way. Have you looked at i386/conf/NOTES? There is some > > > > more information in there. > > > > > > device isa is normal, and he probably just commented out eisa > > > since modern systems don't have EISA slots. The apm thing won't > > > hurt, though it probably adds a small bit of bloat to the kernel. > > > If you have both apm and acpi then acpi will be used if it is > > > present, otherwise if acpi is not present (or is disabled) then > > > apm will be used. > > > > Hi John, > > > > It seems to me that eisa was an extension to isa and that most > > modern computers don't have an isa bus but have eisa bus instead, > > In fact I have a Gateway Computer (500Mhz PIII) that has an eisa > > slot on the MB. Actually most modern computers don't physically > > have a slot for either isa or eisa. Quite possibly either one would > > work. I have 'device eisa' in my conf, it's also 'device eisa' in > > the GENERIC conf which is why I mentioned it. > > While it is an extension of the ISA system, it is not something that > can be used with the same drivers as ISA. They are completely > separate devices. And almost all systems have ISA devices, even > though they have not ISA slots. For example, the mouse and keyboard > are ISA devices. In V&, ISA gets built into the kernel whether you > have it in your config file or not because too many people assumed > that they didn't need it and built broken kernels. Yes, it is > possible (and easy) to build a kernel without the ISA device, but it > requires modifying another file that is used by config.) > > Also, some systems will fail to boot if the EISA driver is in the > kernel. Rare, but becoming more common as EISA gets rarer. Thank you Kevin, Quite a good, simple, easy to understand explanation. So, since I don't have 'device isa' in my conf, but I do have 'device eisa', is this going to at some point become a problem? Do you think I should change that around? That I might be better off doing it that way? But, I think we are starting to get off-topic for this list at this point, and any responses concerning my questions would probably be better going to me personally. Don