Liam J. Foy
liamfoy at sepulcrum.org
Wed Jun 16 21:17:04 GMT 2004
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 15:02:27 -0600 (MDT)
"M. Warner Losh" <imp at bsdimp.com> wrote:
> In message: <20040616215708.360cf786.liamfoy at sepulcrum.org>
> "Liam J. Foy" <liamfoy at sepulcrum.org> writes:
> : On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 14:52:57 -0600 (MDT)
> : "M. Warner Losh" <imp at bsdimp.com> wrote:
> : > In message: <20040616213946.6f7def3d.liamfoy at sepulcrum.org>
> : > Liam Foy <liamfoy at sepulcrum.org> writes:
> : > : > +#define APM_UNKNOWN 0xff /* Unknown in APM BIOS spec */
> : > :
> : > : Do you not mean 0xffffffff ?
> : >
> : > No. 0xff is the right number here. The problem is that there's a
> : > number of different flag values, some which come directly from the APM
> : > BIOS, and others that are generated by the drivers.
> : Seems am confused. If they are returning 0xffffffff why are we testing for
> : 0xff?
> Because they aren't returning 0xffffffff. They are returning 0xff.
> That's the point Nate seems to be confused on. For both apm and acpi
> I've confirmed that 0xff is returned. If there are situations that
> I've not been able to find where this isn't the case, the drivers
> should be corrected. Code inspection can only go so far on this.
Yeah. This has been causing utter confusion, needs to be fixed once and
for all. The man page stages 255 is returned also, except for ai_batt_time
(-t) since it is an int. To finalise, APM returns -1 for UNKNOWN and so we should
test for -1 or 0xff?
I recently lost a small disk with a specification on. I could of sworn it said
0xffffffff. Maybe Nate and I had the same document. Do you have a specification
you could possibly email me privately with it?
More information about the freebsd-acpi