OpenBSD Journal
Home : : Add Story : : Archives : : About : : Create Account : : Login :
acpi support
Contributed by mk/reverse on Tue Jun 7 21:01:28 2005 (GMT)
from the fancy-hardware-technology dept.

Thorsten Lockert recently committed ACPI support:

Log message:
Start on a basic ACPI framework -- does not do much more than read out the
ACPI tables into kernel memory and attach ACPI and HPET timers currently.

This is very interesting, but the code is not yet feature-complete and requires lots of testing, so it's currently not hooked into the build.

Read the complete commit message.

[topicopenbsd]

<< Interview with Theo on TuxJournal | Reply | Flattened | Collapsed | Patch 001 for OpenBSD 3.7 >>

Threshold: Help

Related Links
more by mk/reverse


  Re: acpi support (mod 1/13)
by Anonymous Coward (194.85.97.83) on Wed Jun 8 08:45:54 2005 (GMT)
  AFAIK Theo hates ACPI.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

       
Re: acpi support (mod -2/10)
by Anonymous Coward (213.23.134.92) on Wed Jun 8 08:58:10 2005 (GMT)
  Why?
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

         
Re: acpi support (mod 0/16)
by uriel (82.182.149.44) on Wed Jun 8 10:05:14 2005 (GMT)
  Because any sane person would hate ACPI, one of the wort ideas in a long time, and that not counting the broken implementations someone else already posted about.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

           
Re: acpi support (mod 7/15)
by Anonymous Coward (213.118.35.56) on Wed Jun 8 10:24:26 2005 (GMT)
  No. ACPI is one of the best ideas in a long time. Don't confuse poor implementations with poor ideas.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

             
Re: acpi support (mod -3/15)
by Anonymous Coward (65.167.23.134) on Wed Jun 8 13:17:10 2005 (GMT)
  You sound like one of the minor characters from Deus Ex.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

           
Re: acpi support (mod 8/14)
by Anonymous Coward (204.214.120.254) on Wed Jun 8 12:42:38 2005 (GMT)
  perhaps some reasoning as to why it is one of the worst ideas in a long time?
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

             
Re: acpi support (mod 12/20)
by tedu (64.173.147.27) on Wed Jun 8 16:46:49 2005 (GMT)
  http://www.cpqlinux.com/acpi-howto.html#my_dsdt_fixes
"I then changed my 0xa7 to 0xa8:"

http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/acpi-debug.html
"An easy way to override this is to set hw.acpi.osname="Windows 2001" in /boot/loader.conf"

http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/ChangeLog-2.6.11.1
"Some ACPI-related changes were recently made to i8042 discovery for ia64.
Unfortunately this broke a significant number of Dell laptops due to their having incorrect BIOS tables."
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

               
Re: acpi support (mod -3/7)
by niallo (207.213.220.253) on Thu Jun 9 17:06:34 2005 (GMT)
  Of course, the greatest indictment of ACPI is the spec itself:

http://www.acpi.info/DOWNLOADS/ACPIspec30.pdf

  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

       
Re: acpi support (mod 9/15)
by Anonymous Coward (87.78.0.106) on Wed Jun 8 09:16:47 2005 (GMT)
  acpi is funny stuff.
microsoft made some "mistakes" in their implementation.
the motherboard makers implemented those mistakes to have their acpi-features supported.
so if you want to develope acpi support you always have to work around those "faulty" mainboards. (sry it's late)
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

         
Re: acpi support (mod 2/6)
by Anonymous Coward (207.171.180.101) on Wed Jun 8 16:55:49 2005 (GMT)
  So it's Microsoft's fault. Again!
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

           
Re: acpi support (mod 0/6)
by Bert (68.100.43.184) (blambert at thepresidency dot org) on Thu Jun 9 23:40:23 2005 (GMT)
  Isn't it always? :p
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

             
not exactly fault (mod 1/7)
by Fábio Olivé Leite (156.153.255.236) (fabio.olive@Google Mail) on Fri Jun 10 13:08:12 2005 (GMT)
  It's been a few years now that I've come to perceive such "mistakes" coming from Microsoft not as their fault, but as part of a carefully architected plan to keep the rest of the world spinning around them as much as they can.

They used to protect theit monopoly position by the well known "Embrace and Extend" tactics of producing seemingly better protocols/formats only slightly incompatible with the standards. Very soon everybody else who wants to play has to bow and implement the slightly incompatible version and it becomes a de facto standard. The "Embrace and Extend" tactic got too old-fashioned and easy to spot, so now it's been recycled to something like "Embrace and Distort".

In this new "Embrace and Distort" tactic they get standards wrong on purpose so that they still get everyone to jump when they say jump. It doesn't have to be Microsoft ACPI anymore, it's just ACPI. But whoever sets out to implement such distorted standards sooner or later finds out they are heavily influenced by some "[mis-]take" (noun, 5th meaning) from Microsoft.

When people call them on it later on they can always say "Oh, but the standard is so dificult to get right!" (they distorted it) or "Hey, it's a bug!" (feature).

OK, the above sounds conspirational, I have no evidence, no facts, blah blah. Whatever. It's just my opinion.

  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

         
Re: acpi support (mod 1/3)
by Observer (203.26.16.67) on Fri Jun 10 10:20:25 2005 (GMT)
  When I first read about microsoft and hardware manufacturers working on the acpi spec i suspected they were doing this to introduce further advantages to windows over *nix
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: acpi support (mod 13/19)
by Oliver E. (62.65.148.234) on Wed Jun 8 11:35:05 2005 (GMT)
  Notepbooks such as the (noisy, poor quality) Sony R600 series I own will not see interrupts assigned to their cardbus bridge without ACPI interrupt routing. More and more systems rely exclusively on ACPI for resource handling. Good ACPI support is the #1 feature I would like to see implemented; Without it, OpenBSD is not an option on this system.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: acpi support (mod 3/9)
by Anonymous Coward (213.118.35.56) on Thu Jun 9 13:44:39 2005 (GMT)
  What about the FreeBSD ACPI efforts? I seem to remember that a lot of work has gone into that recently, particularly for laptops. Is any of this code useable on OpenBSD at all?
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

       
Re: acpi support (mod 2/8)
by Anonymous Coward (193.63.217.208) on Thu Jun 9 13:46:42 2005 (GMT)
  IIRC the FreeBSD code is based on stuff they got from Intel with a distinctly non-free license. Whatever Theo's feelings on ACPI, his view on non-free licenses is bang on :)
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

         
Re: acpi support (mod 4/6)
by Anonymous Coward (24.130.94.216) on Thu Jun 9 14:18:46 2005 (GMT)
 

I don't know about that. I thought Intel has the ACPI code under a BSD-like license. Let me see what I can find about this.

Here's some links. Some are kind of old.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-984769.html
http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0302.0/1091.html
http://bsdnews.com/view_story.php3?story_id=3540

Like I said, those links are old but one would gather that the ACPI-CA is under a BSD license. But why do I just not feel 100% sure on that? The real proof would be finding something on Itel's site regarding that, but I didn't find anything in my quick search.

  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

           
Re: acpi support (mod 3/7)
by Anonymous Coward (193.63.217.208) on Thu Jun 9 14:58:18 2005 (GMT)
  http://www.intel.com/technology/iapc/acpi/license2.htm

The export restrictions wouldn't be compatible with OpenBSD's goals I think.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

         
Re: acpi support (mod 5/9)
by Anonymous Coward (63.174.231.179) on Thu Jun 9 14:24:26 2005 (GMT)
  Since when is the acpi support in freebsd non-free? It's distributed under a bsd license.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

           
Re: acpi support (mod 2/8)
by Janne Johansson (82.182.176.20) on Thu Jun 9 17:09:48 2005 (GMT)
  If the FreeBSD code comes from the intel-license linked to above, and has this text in it "Licensee shall not export, either directly or indirectly, any of this software or system incorporating such software without first obtaining any required license or other approval from the U. S. Department of Commerce or any other agency or department of the United States Government." then it is far from free.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

       
Re: acpi support (mod 5/9)
by tedu (64.173.147.27) on Thu Jun 9 17:23:15 2005 (GMT)
  that's where acpidump came from. but even with all the work on it, it doesn't work reliably for all people. just check the cvs logs or read their mailing lists. again, this is a mix of acpi the concept being broken and acpi the implementation being buggy, but not necessarily the freebsd developers' fault.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

[ Home | Add Story | Archives | Polls | About ]

Copyright © 2004-2008 Daniel Hartmeier. All rights reserved. Articles and comments are copyright their respective authors, submission implies license to publish on this web site. Contents of the archive prior to April 2nd 2004 as well as images and HTML templates were copied from the fabulous original deadly.org with Jose's and Jim's kind permission. Some icons from slashdot.org used with permission from Kathleen. This journal runs as CGI with httpd(8) on OpenBSD, the source code is BSD licensed. Search engine is ht://Dig. undeadly \Un*dead"ly\, a. Not subject to death; immortal. [Obs.]