On Feb 11 10:34:57, Jan Stary wrote:
> > > This looks same as problem on my hp 6930p. According to Jordan it's some
> > > reference counting bug somewhere. This makes it boot...
>
> > > Index: dsdt.c
> > > ===================================================================
> > > RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/dev/acpi/dsdt.c,v
> > > retrieving revision 1.157
> > > diff -u -p -r1.157 dsdt.c
> > > --- dsdt.c 5 Dec 2009 02:38:11 -0000 1.157
> > > +++ dsdt.c 23 Jan 2010 23:49:46 -0000
> > > @@ -3629,7 +3629,7 @@ aml_xparse(struct aml_scope *scope, int
> > > aml_freevalue(opargs[1]);
> > >
> > > /* Create Object Reference */
> > > - _aml_setvalue(opargs[1], AML_OBJTYPE_OBJREF, opcode,
> > > opargs[0]);
> > > + _aml_setvalue(opargs[1], AML_OBJTYPE_INTEGER,
> > > 0xDEADBEEF, opargs[0]);
> > > aml_xaddref(opargs[1], "CondRef");
> > >
> > > /* Mark that we found it */
> > >
>
> > Yes it does, on my HP 8630w too. Which gives me acpiec(4) back.
> > Which fixes acpibat(4) and acpiac(4). Which fixes apmd(8), who
> > correctly reports the battery/AC status now and dims/brightens
> > the screen accordingly, too.
>
> It worked for a while, but recently, having acpiec enabled
> (with the patch above) results in
>
> acpitz0 at acpi0: critical temperature 115 degC
> acpitz1 at acpi0: critical temperature 105 degC
> acpitz2 at acpi0: critical temperature 112 degC
> acpitz3 at acpi0: critical temperature 112 degC
> acpitz4 at acpi0: critical temperature 90 degC
> acpitz5 at acpi0: critical temperature 112 degC
Sorry. These messages are always there and probably describe
the temperatures _considered_ to be critical. Right?
What it actually says on boot is
acpitz2: Critical temperature, shutting down.
I don't think there's anything hotter than 112C while the machine boots.
With acpiec disabled, the above does not happen and sysctl hw.sensors
reports reasonable temperatures; the systme runs fine (except acpibat
and others are confused).
> at boot and the system shuts down (correctly).
> So I had to disable even the patched acpiec again.
>
> Is anyone experiencing the same? Is there any point
> upgrading to a 4.7-beta snapshot in this regard?
>
> Thanks
>
> Jan
