> On Apr 15, 2024, at 2:57 PM, matthew green <m...@eterna23.net> wrote: > > this might be the same as > > > https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgnats.netbsd.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fquery-pr-single.pl%3Fnumber%3D57153&data=05%7C02%7Cbrook%40biology.nmsu.edu%7C4e3a710638ae4a29190f08dc5d8ec577%7Ca3ec87a89fb84158ba8ff11bace1ebaa%7C1%7C0%7C638488114982587406%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2fo3KIFYLA3O3gOhd%2B8Q5gNBe%2BkyEC2EVrLLtkw4n%2Fo%3D&reserved=0 > > it's the same faulting function and similar offset...
Yes, almost certainly the same. I can’t easily compare all the registers exactly (but could if it helps), but the description and other information appears to be the same. It’s a little hard to capture the last bits before the halt, but it looks to be the same as in the PR: ACPI handling of cpus. For what it’s worth, disabling ACPI allowed 10.0 to boot fine and so far it appears to be working. Are there other implications of doing that? I’m not sure how ACPI handling relates to the code in the PR, though. Perhaps it gives an idea. Cheers, Brook
