Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 20 Sep 2004 11:59:33 -0400
From:      John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>
To:        freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.org
Cc:        "Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@intel.com>
Subject:   Re: trouble overriding DSDT
Message-ID:  <200409201159.33995.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <414E7689.80703@root.org>
References:  <37F890616C995246BE76B3E6B2DBE05502071306@orsmsx403.amr.corp.intel.com> <20040919215548.GA37391@dhcp44.pn.xcllnt.net> <414E7689.80703@root.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 20 September 2004 02:19 am, Nate Lawson wrote:
> Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 02:07:58PM -0700, Nate Lawson wrote:
> >>The right fix I think is to disable SSDT loading if we've overridden the
> >>DSDT.  Bob, what do you think?  Marcel, we should fix this for 5.3R
> >>because it will prevent people from using custom ASL easily.  Another
> >>quick fix would be to put a comment block around the disassembled SSDT
> >>so it is there for inspection but doesn't affect recompilation.
> >
> > Tricky. The advantage of SSDTs is that it allows you to modularize,
> > which means that one may want to be able to override a single SSDT.
> > In that case, overriding the DSDT does not automaticly imply that
> > none of the SSDTs should be loaded.
> >
> > If by default we do load SSDTs when overriding the DSDT (like we happen
> > to do now by coincidence), we should not dump any SSDTs by default in
> > acpidump(8) and vice versa. This also means that we should be able to
> > just dump some SSDT and override just some SSDT.
> >
> > If overriding is acceptable to be an all or nothing approach, then
> > acpidump(8) behaves correctly and we just need to stop loading SSDTs
> > when the DSDT is overridden.
>
> Overriding is only for debugging or for known-bad machines.  So I think
> it's acceptable for the user to pass a combined/hacked DSDT+SSDT and
> have it override all DSDT/SSDT tables.  This is the way I'd like to
> handle this.
>
> For now, I think it makes sense to put the SSDT in a comment block in
> acpidump(8) so that recompiling and overriding works properly and the
> SSDT is still available for examining.  We can do the first fix in
> -current but we need something for 5.3.
>
> Objections?

I think it's a good idea to override all the DSDT+SSDT's when you load a new 
dsdt.  Otherwise it just makes things much more complicated for the user to 
have to know what lives in different SSDT's, etc.  If acpidump continues to 
dump a full table that can then be compiled into a single foo.dsdt that makes 
the user interface a lot simpler and easier to manage.

-- 
John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>  <><  http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve"  =  http://www.FreeBSD.org



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200409201159.33995.jhb>