svn commit: r204877 - head/sys/modules/acpi/acpi

[Jung-uk Kim]

On Monday 08 March 2010 05:52 pm, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> On Monday 08 March 2010 05:25 pm, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Monday 08 March 2010 5:11:42 pm Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> > > On Monday 08 March 2010 04:11 pm, John Baldwin wrote:
> > > > On Monday 08 March 2010 2:40:31 pm Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> > > > > Author: jkim
> > > > > Date: Mon Mar  8 19:40:31 2010
> > > > > New Revision: 204877
> > > > > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/204877
> > > > >
> > > > > Log:
> > > > >   Enable ACPI module build on amd64.  Although we strongly
> > > > > recommend building it into kernel, there is no need to
> > > > > prevent it from building at all.
> > > >
> > > > (Oops, ignore previous spurious reply).
> > > >
> > > > Please revert this.  The MADT parser on amd64 is slightly
> > > > different from i386 and will not work when acpi is loaded as
> > > > a module.  If anything, I would prefer we make acpi not be a
> > > > module on i386. There are several things that would be far
> > > > less invasive to implement via #ifdef DEV_ACPI than by
> > > > defining runtime kobj interfaces to the ACPI driver.
> > >
> > > madt.c itself is not very different but I understand what you
> > > are trying to explain here.  In fact, I tested it before
> > > committing and the trick was adding mptable in place of acpi. 
> > > It worked fine although it may not be ideal.  I can back out
> > > sys/modules/acpi/Makefile change if you agree, however.
> >
> > It is different enough.  Specifically, the amd64 one sets a
> > "better" value for mp_maxid than i386, but it can only do this
> > because it can run before SI_SUB_KLD since it is never invoked as
> > a module.  I still think that we should probably be moving away
> > from acpi.ko rather than towards for other reasons.
>
> I noticed that and I used mptable instead, which seems to do well
> enough for the job.  Please keep in mind that I am not trying to
> promote acpi.ko at all.  I just want to make sure acpi.ko can be
> built and loaded without builing and installing the whole
> world/kernel for i386 to test new ACPICA. :-(
>
> Any way, I will just revert sys/modules/acpi/Makefile change, then.
> It should be a reasonable compromise, deal?

I thought you complained because I accidentally committed my local 
changes to sys/modules/acpi/Makefile.  In fact, I didn't. :-) Do you 
still think I should back it out?  Or is it okay?

Jung-uk Kim