Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 11:34:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: RE: PATCH - updated EC driver Message-ID: <20030709113003.L4186@root.org> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20030709135559.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <XFMail.20030709135559.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003, John Baldwin wrote: > On 09-Jul-2003 Nate Lawson wrote: > > http://root.org/~nate/freebsd/ec-new.diff > > Not as broken as the last patch, but still broken for me: > > ACPI-0432: *** Error: Handler for [EmbeddedControl] returned AE_NO_HARDWARE_RESPONSE > ACPI-1287: *** Error: Method execution failed [\\_SB_.PCI0.PX41.SECN.BEXT] (Node 0xc3342260), > AE_NO_HARDWARE_RESPONSE > ACPI-1287: *** Error: Method execution failed [\\_SB_.PCI0.PX41.SECN.MAST._STA] (Node > 0xc3342320), AE_NO_HARDWARE_RESPONSE Thanks for testing. Try changing the 1000 in line 658 to 10000. Your EC seems to take more than 1 ms to respond. The old behavior was 10 ms which I thought was too long but apparently your system requires this. BTW, what are the guidelines for DELAY vs. msleep? I'm holding a mutex for the local EC for up to 10 ms in that case, in increments of DELAY(10). I would think that somewhere around 1 ms, the delay needs to become an msleep so other device interrupts can occur (i.e. EcGpeHandler). I'm thinking about having the loop up to 1 ms be based on DELAY, and then 9 calls to msleep(..., 1) for the really slow devices. Let me know what you think is best. -Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030709113003.L4186>