Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 16:11:44 -0600 From: "Donald J. O'Neill" <duncan.fbsd@gmail.com> To: "Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net> Cc: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Kernel panic with ACPI enabled Message-ID: <200602071611.45274.duncan.fbsd@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20060207203340.7C5F945041@ptavv.es.net> References: <20060207203340.7C5F945041@ptavv.es.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 07 February 2006 14:33, Kevin Oberman wrote: > > From: "Donald J. O'Neill" <duncan.fbsd@gmail.com> > > 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200602071611.45274.duncan.fbsd>