> -Original Message-
> From: Hans Petter Selasky [mailto:h...@selasky.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 8:23 AM
> To: Moore, Robert ; Edward Tomasz Napierala
> ; O. Hartmann
> Cc: freebsd-a...@freebsd.org; freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Vladimir
> Zakharov
>
Not sure I understand. The fix has been committed, and is part of version
20161222.
> -Original Message-
> From: Hans Petter Selasky [mailto:h...@selasky.org]
> Sent: Monday, January 2, 2017 12:30 AM
> To: Moore, Robert ; Edward Tomasz Napierala
> ; O. Hartmann
ACPICA version 20161222 happened today, with a fix for the problem below.
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-freebsd-a...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
> a...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Moore, Robert
> Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 7:21 AM
> To: Edward Tomas
We have fixed this issue for the latest version of ACPICA that will happen this
week, probably 22 december.
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-freebsd-a...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
> a...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Edward Tomasz Napierala
> Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 3:1
Here's what we released:
#define ACPI_FIRST_METHOD_ID0x0001
#define ACPI_FIRST_TABLE_ID 0xF000
> -Original Message-
> From: Nate Lawson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 11:00 AM
> To: Takayoshi Kochi
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTE
TABLE_ID_DSDT was removed because the table ID should be dynamically
allocated. There was a longstanding "TBD" to remove it.
It appears that there is some issue with this change, and of course we
would like to get to the root of this problem.
Bob
> -Original Message-
> From: Takayoshi
I think this code is the problem:
Scope(\_TZ_) {
ThermalZone(THRM) {
Name(_AL0, Package(0x1) {
FAN_,
})
The name "FAN_" is not defined elsewhere in the namespace.
Bob
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Seck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, Nove
The deleted object problem has been fixed in the 20021122 release which
should be available soon, if not already. (I was able to reproduce the
problem with your dsdt on previous releases, and I verified it fixed with
the 11/22 release.)
I did not see any mutex issues -- as we found out on Linux,
You'll need to enable the ACPI debug output and send this out so we can get
a better idea of what is going on.
Thanks,
Bob
-Original Message-
From: Matthew Emmerton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 5:54 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mitsuru IWASAKI
Cc: [EMAIL PROT
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 7:58 AM
To: Moore, Robert
Cc: Mitsuru IWASAKI; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [acpi-jp 1965] RE: Call for testers: acpica-unix-20021118.ta
On 22-Nov-2002 Moore, Robert wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, the ACPI specification also say
PE1_BLK or
GPE1_BLK_LEN is zero, there is no GPE1. Likewise with the GPE0 block.
Bob
-Original Message-----
From: Moore, Robert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 3:00 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; John Baldwin
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mitsuru IWASAKI
Subject: [ac
DSDT=0x3ffbf77
INT_MODEL=PIC
SCI_INT=9
SMI_CMD=0xb1, ACPI_ENABLE=0xf0, ACPI_DISABLE=0xf1, S4BIOS_REQ=0x0
PM1a_EVT_BLK=0x1000-0x1003
PM1a_CNT_BLK=0x1004-0x1005
PM2_CNT_BLK=0x1030-0x1030
PM2_TMR_BLK=0x1008-0x100b
PM2_GPE0_BLK=0
>>ACPI-0483: *** Error: GPE0 block (GPE 0 to 15) overlaps the GPE1 block
(GPE 0 to 15)
It appears that in your machine's FADT:
1) There is a GPE1 block defined (GPE1_BLK, GPE1_BLK_LEN)
2) The GPE1_BASE is set to zero.
One of these is wrong.
Bob
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your patches seem to fix three things:
1) Implicit returns
2) Invalid escape sequences (missing double backslashes)
3) Uninitialized Locals
Which one was causing the original problem as reported?
Thanks,
Bob
-Original Message-
From: Mitsuru IWASAKI [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: W
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 3:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [acpi-jp 1750] Re: Call for testers: acpica-unix-20020815
On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Moore, Robert wrote:
>
> This looks like the (in)famous "implicit return" problem that is in som
: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 3:40 PM
To: Moore, Robert
Cc: 'Mitsuru IWASAKI'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Grover, Andrew
Subject: Re: [acpi-jp 1735] Re: Call for testers: acpica-unix-20020815
"Moore, Robert" wrote:
> I think you are missing somethin
his is how these kinds of problems creep
into the BIOS AML code.
Bob
-Original Message-
From: Terry Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 2:54 PM
To: Moore, Robert
Cc: 'Mitsuru IWASAKI'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Grover
intended to be the return value of a
function?
Bob
-Original Message-
From: Terry Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 2:05 PM
To: Moore, Robert
Cc: 'Mitsuru IWASAKI'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Grover, Andrew
Subject:
This looks like the (in)famous "implicit return" problem that is in some
Toshiba ASL files.
Method(_CRS) {
CRS_(0x10)
}
This does NOT actually return a value and the ASL code is incorrect. It has
to be:
Method(_CRS) {
19 matches
Mail list logo
