From owner-acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org  Sat Oct  7 19:03:55 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by castle.jp.freebsd.org (8.9.3+3.2W/8.7.3) id TAA08953;
	Sat, 7 Oct 2000 19:03:55 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org)
Received: from mass.osd.bsdi.com (adsl-63-202-176-106.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.202.176.106])
	by castle.jp.freebsd.org (8.9.3+3.2W/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA08946
	for <acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org>; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 19:03:53 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from msmith@mass.osd.bsdi.com)
Received: from mass.osd.bsdi.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mass.osd.bsdi.com (8.11.0/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e97A5jh00442
	for <acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org>; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 03:05:46 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from msmith@mass.osd.bsdi.com)
Message-Id: <200010071005.e97A5jh00442@mass.osd.bsdi.com>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999
To: acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 07 Oct 2000 16:02:32 +0900."
             <20001007160232T.iwasaki@jp.FreeBSD.org> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 03:05:45 -0700
From: Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org>
Reply-To: acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org
Precedence: list
X-Distribute: distribute version 2.1 (Alpha) patchlevel 24e+000315
X-Sequence: acpi-jp 817
Subject: [acpi-jp 817] Re: acpi_lid patch 
Errors-To: owner-acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org
Sender: owner-acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org
X-Originator: msmith@freebsd.org

> Calling acpi_Disable() from acpi_shutdown_pre_sync() is mandatory for
> some machines.  We know that GPE events prevent the system from power off,
> I have one machine which have this problem.  Without this code, the
> system is immediately turned on again and start booting :-(  The older
> driver has this work around.  Also we probably need event handler cleanup
> around here.

I'm no so sure about this.  I think that the shutdown_final handler 
should probably just mask all the GPE's at the last moment.  It would be 
interesting to know, however, what other people (I'm thinking Windows 
here) are doing...

> For acpi_Enable/Disable, I think we should support them unless we can
> replace APM with ACPI providing the full power management features
> including S2-4.  Many laptop users will use APM for suspending the
> system untill full ACPI support (at least power management portion).

This is what S4BIOS is meant to achieve.  I don't think that it's a good 
idea to try to switch back and forth between APM and ACPI; we know how 
bad BIOS code is already.

(thanks for the patches; I'm just trying to make the ACPICA debugger 
 work and then I need to find out who is calling the _REG method in my 
 *&^(&^*(*^ EC's address space before the EC driver loads.  *sigh*)

-- 
... every activity meets with opposition, everyone who acts has his
rivals and unfortunately opponents also.  But not because people want
to be opponents, rather because the tasks and relationships force
people to take different points of view.  [Dr. Fritz Todt]
           V I C T O R Y   N O T   V E N G E A N C E


