Kernel panic with ACPI enabled

[Donald J. O'Neill]

On Tuesday 07 February 2006 14:33, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> > From: "Donald J. O'Neill" <duncan.fbsd at gmail.com>
> > Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 14:13:06 -0600
> > Sender: owner-freebsd-acpi at freebsd.org
> >
> > On Tuesday 07 February 2006 13:04, John Baldwin wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 07 February 2006 13:37, Donald J. O'Neill wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 07 February 2006 09:48, John Baldwin wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have a few things. Is there a reason you have 'device apm'?
> > > > Are you trying to use APM and ACPI at the same time? Why do you
> > > > have 'device isa' rather than 'device eisa'? Where you, by any
> > > > chance, just re-using your conf file from 5.x? It kind of looks
> > > > that way. Have you looked at i386/conf/NOTES? There is some
> > > > more information in there.
> > >
> > > device isa is normal, and he probably just commented out eisa
> > > since modern systems don't have EISA slots.  The apm thing won't
> > > hurt, though it probably adds a small bit of bloat to the kernel.
> > >  If you have both apm and acpi then acpi will be used if it is
> > > present, otherwise if acpi is not present (or is disabled) then
> > > apm will be used.
> >
> > Hi John,
> >
> > It seems to me that eisa was an extension to isa and that most
> > modern computers don't have an isa bus but have eisa bus instead,
> > In fact I have a Gateway Computer (500Mhz PIII) that has an eisa
> > slot on the MB. Actually most modern computers don't physically
> > have a slot for either isa or eisa. Quite possibly either one would
> > work. I have 'device eisa' in my conf, it's also 'device eisa' in
> > the GENERIC conf which is why I mentioned it.
>
> While it is an extension of the ISA system, it is not something that
> can be used with the same drivers as ISA. They are completely
> separate devices. And almost all systems have ISA devices, even
> though they have not ISA slots. For example, the mouse and keyboard
> are ISA devices. In V&, ISA gets built into the kernel whether you
> have it in your config file or not because too many people assumed
> that they didn't need it and built broken kernels. Yes, it is
> possible (and easy) to build a kernel without the ISA device, but it
> requires modifying another file that is used by config.)
>
> Also, some systems will fail to boot if the EISA driver is in the
> kernel. Rare, but becoming more common as EISA gets rarer.

Thank you Kevin,

Quite a good, simple, easy to understand explanation. So, since I don't 
have 'device isa' in my conf, but I do have 'device eisa', is this 
going to at some point become a problem? Do you think I should change 
that around? That I might be better off doing it that way?

But, I think we are starting to get off-topic for this list at this 
point, and any responses concerning my questions would probably be 
better going to me personally.

Don