From owner-acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org  Thu Oct  4 11:31:39 2001
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by castle.jp.freebsd.org (8.9.3+3.2W/8.7.3) id LAA73015;
	Thu, 4 Oct 2001 11:31:39 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org)
Received: from mass.dis.org (mass.dis.org [216.240.45.41])
	by castle.jp.freebsd.org (8.9.3+3.2W/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA73010
	for <acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org>; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 11:31:38 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from msmith@mass.dis.org)
Received: from mass.dis.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mass.dis.org (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f942fZI06164
	for <acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org>; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 19:41:35 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from msmith@mass.dis.org)
Message-Id: <200110040241.f942fZI06164@mass.dis.org>
To: acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: Message from Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org> 
   of "Wed, 03 Oct 2001 18:53:25 PDT." <200110040153.f941rQI05766@mass.dis.org> 
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 19:41:35 -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+010328
X-Sequence: acpi-jp 1331
Subject: [acpi-jp 1331] Re: acpica-unix-20010920 and porting to NetBSD 
Errors-To: owner-acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org
Sender: owner-acpi-jp@jp.freebsd.org
X-Originator: msmith@freebsd.org

> > 
> > I've noticed that new ACPI CA snapshot, acpica-unix-20010929, have
> > been released at:
> > http://developer.intel.com/technology/iapc/acpi/downloads/acpica-unix-20010920.tar.gz
> 
> I'm having a very bad time making this code drop work.  It's pointed
> out a bug in the acpi_pcib code (which should use acpi_DeviceIsPresent),
> but worse than that, it doesn't seem to evaluate _CRS methods like the
> old code did (I keep getting AE_TYPE).  Aside from that, the changes in
> psparse.c mean that our old diff for the 'effective return value' doesn't
> apply anymore. 8(

Actually, these problems are one and the same; the _CRS methods for
the PCI Interrupt Link devices in the Tecra 8100 depend on implicit return
working.

I tried to adapt the old patch to work with the new code, but I must have
missed something, because it's not working. 8(

Andy & co. at Intel - could you please consider, again, supporting the 
"implicit return" feature, even if you just make it a build-time option?

Too many systems out there depend on it for correct functioning. 8(

Regards,
Mike
