From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 25 16:55:17 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.org Received: from [127.0.0.1] (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18D08106564A; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:55:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org) From: Jung-uk Kim To: Bernhard Froehlich Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:54:56 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <201010191131.16732.jkim@FreeBSD.org> <23edca762eb8c4fb6306a607d5935564@bluelife.at> In-Reply-To: <23edca762eb8c4fb6306a607d5935564@bluelife.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201010251255.09604.jkim@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.org, vbox@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: VirtualBox: Compile problems with ACPICA 20101013 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: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:55:17 -0000 On Saturday 23 October 2010 03:28 am, Bernhard Froehlich wrote: > On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:31:00 -0400, Jung-uk Kim > > wrote: > > On Tuesday 19 October 2010 08:52 am, Bernhard Froehlich wrote: > >> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 13:33:26 -0400, Jung-uk Kim > >> > >> > >> wrote: > >> > On Monday 18 October 2010 05:44 am, Bernhard Froehlich wrote: > >> >> Hi guys! > >> >> > >> >> VirtualBox has a compile problem with latest acpica. I've > >> >> talked to the VirtualBox developers and they think it's an > >> >> acpica problem which should be fixed upstream. Can we somehow > >> >> file a bugreport or create a patch to fix that in acpica? > >> > > >> > Excerpt rom ACPI 4.0a: > >> > > >> > --------------------------------------------------- > >> > Each Compatible Device ID must be either: > >> > > >> > o A valid HID value (a 32-bit compressed EISA type ID or a > >> > string such as "ACPI0004"). > >> > o A string that uses a bus-specific nomenclature. For > >> > example, _CID can be used to specify the PCI ID. > >> > --------------------------------------------------- > >> > > >> > Since it is not a valid HID value, you can only say it may be > >> > a bus-specific nomenclature at best. However, it looks like > >> > an ISA device to me and probably it is just a bogus ID. In > >> > fact, I googled a bit and it only exists on some Intel Mac > >> > models, it seems. You can just remove the entire _CID unless > >> > it is absolutely necessary, which is very unlikely. :-) > >> > >> It very much looks like a regression. Right beyond that > >> sentences they have a few examples in the ACPI 4.0a spec on page > >> 201 that won't pass that check. I haven't looked at all the code > >> so probably it's done somewhere completely different but if it > >> is checked with that code then it will complain. > >> > >> ACPI 4.0a spec on page 201: > >> --------------------------------------------------- > >> o A valid HID value (a 32-bit compressed EISA type ID or a > >> string such as "ACPI0004"). > >> o A string that uses a bus-specific nomenclature. For example, > >> _CID can be used to specify the PCI ID. > >> > >> "PCI\CC_ccss" > >> "PCI\CC_ccsspp" > >> "PCI\VEN_vvvv&DEV_dddd&SUBSYS_ssssssss&REV_rr" > >> .... > >> --------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> Now with a deeper look at the commit from acpica [1] especially > >> the second half. Before there was only an alphanumeric check for > >> _HID but with that change it was put into a new function > >> AnCheckId() that is called for both _HID and _CID and now wants > >> both to be alphanumeric. That looks correct for _HID but it's > >> too strict for _CID which is a string. Somewhere i've seen > >> string is defined as a null-terminated ASCII string and no word > >> about alphanumeric. > >> > >> [1] > >> http://git.moblin.org/cgit.cgi/acpica/commit/?id=b66fd716e0b9b53 > >>89e > > > > Yes, I am aware of the issue. My point was _CID may be pointless > > for *VirtualBox* and it can be removed. > > I am just trying to figure out who is wrong and try to fix it there > if possible. Understood. > So do you agree that this is a acpica regression? Yes, I do. I was told Intel would going to look into it. > Vbox guys say that removing it is not a good idea because it will > "break things" but I don't know what it is used for so I cannot test > it. It *may* break Mac OS X guest. However, I don't believe it would rely on _CID. On top of that, Mac OS X is not a supported guest OS and it is illegal, AFAIK. So, I don't think it would matter. ;-) Jung-uk Kim