Idwer Vollering wrote:
> Updated against r6119, yet unfinished.
Here is my extended version, wip.
Index: src/southbridge/intel/i82371eb/i82371eb_fadt.c
===
--- /dev/null 1970-01-01 00:00:00.0 +
+++ src/southbridge/intel
On 4/14/10 5:54 AM, Keith Hui wrote:
> irq 9: nobody cared (try booting with the "irqpoll" option)
This is caused by setting fadt->sci_int without an irqoverride source in
the MADT.
current += acpi_create_madt_irqoverride((acpi_madt_irqoverride_t *)
current, 0, 9, 9, MP_IR
Hi Keith,
* I also replicated the content of the PIIX4 function 3 config space
after booting with vendor BIOS, as below:
00:04.3 Bridge: Intel Corporation 82371AB/EB/MB PIIX4 ACPI (rev 02)
00: 86 80 13 71 03 00 80 02 02 00 80 06 00 00 00 00
10: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
2010/4/14 Keith Hui
> Hi all,
>
> Based on Idwer's RFC I tried adding ACPI to P2B-LS plus completing the
> rest of the PIIX4 function 3 initialization.
>
> This is a summary of what I did:
>
> * I used the DSDT table from the final vendor BIOS. Not provided here
> for obvious reasons, but I can t
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Idwer Vollering wrote:
> 2010/4/14 Keith Hui
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Based on Idwer's RFC I tried adding ACPI to P2B-LS plus completing the
>> rest of the PIIX4 function 3 initialization.
>>
>> This is a summary of what I did:
>>
>> * I used the DSDT table from the fi
On 15.04.2010 18:43, Keith Hui wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Idwer Vollering wrote:
>
>> 2010/4/14 Keith Hui
>>
>>> This is also RFC and is not signed off at this point, but comments are
>>> welcome.
>>>
>> When is it okay to sign off :) probably when the major function
On 4/15/10 6:43 PM, Keith Hui wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Idwer Vollering wrote:
>>> This is also RFC and is not signed off at this point, but comments are
>>> welcome.
>>>
>> When is it okay to sign off :) probably when the major functions like
>> standby and soft poweroff/r
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 23:18:32 +0200, Stefan Reinauer
wrote:
> On 4/15/10 6:43 PM, Keith Hui wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Idwer Vollering
> wrote:
>
This is also RFC and is not signed off at this point, but comments are
welcome.
>>> When is it okay to sign of
On 4/15/10 11:51 PM, Joseph Smith wrote:
> Hmm, So if your code is not quite complete (or not quite ready for commit)
> but you think other interested developers might be able to offer help or
> suggestions or reviews what do you do then?
>
Sign it off
--
coresystems GmbH • Brahmsstr. 16 • D-7
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 23:59:38 +0200, Stefan Reinauer
wrote:
> On 4/15/10 11:51 PM, Joseph Smith wrote:
>> Hmm, So if your code is not quite complete (or not quite ready for
> commit)
>> but you think other interested developers might be able to offer help or
>> suggestions or reviews what do you
On 16.04.2010 00:11, Joseph Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 23:59:38 +0200, Stefan Reinauer
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/15/10 11:51 PM, Joseph Smith wrote:
>>
>>> Hmm, So if your code is not quite complete (or not quite ready for
>>> commit)
>>> but you think other interested developers might be
working off a DSDT
table derived from the vendor BIOS and that could be a problem, at
least legally.
Now, technical question.
Stefan gave me these inputs:
--
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 08:31:37 +0200
From: Stefan Reinauer
To: coreboot@coreboot.org
Subject: Re: [coreboot] [RFC] ACPI f
On 4/26/10 3:55 AM, Idwer Vollering wrote:
>
>
>
> Generally your fadt looks a bit off, still:
> +fadt->sci_int = 9; // APM_CNT
> This is not APM control but the sci interrupt
> +fadt->smi_cmd = 0;
>
>
> smi_cmd means smi command port ?
yes
--
coreboot mailing list: corebo
13 matches
Mail list logo
