No APM yet for AMD?

[Nate Lawson]

Ariff Abdullah wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 17:18:42 +0100
> Bruno Ducrot <ducrot at poupinou.org> wrote:
> 
>>On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 10:14:13AM -0500, Francisco Reyes wrote:
>>
>>>Bruno Ducrot writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>http://public.natserv.net/acpidump.txt
>>>>
>>>>Well could you try to add this to your /boot/loader.conf:
>>>>hw.acpi.osname="Microsoft Windows NT"
>>>
>>>Done
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>It's because I want to check what happens if the following ASL is
>>>>triggered:
>>>>
>>>>If (LEqual (SizeOf (\_OS), 0x14))
>>>>{
>>>>   BPOL (0x3C)
>>>>}
>>>
>>>Second dump on the same location... different name
>>>http://public.natserv.net/acpidump2.txt
>>>
>>>
>>>>That's look like a workaround for Windows NT and that seems to
>>>>be related to batteries and AC adapter.
>>>
>>>Not sure what was supposed to happen after trying the change in 
>>>loader.conf, but I tried "sysctl -a |grep acpi.bat" and the
>>>results are the  same as before.
>>>
>>>hw.acpi.battery.life: -1 
>>>hw.acpi.battery.time: -1
>>>hw.acpi.battery.state: 7
>>>hw.acpi.battery.units: 1
>>>hw.acpi.battery.info_expire: 5
>>
>>It was a stupid idea, sorry.  I will look a little bit more.  I
>>think I begin to understand what's wrong, but I need to look a
>>little bit further.
>>
>>I also CC to freebsd-acpi@ with a reply-to accordingly.
>>
> 
> Few acpi BIOSes does not support _BST (battery status) method, causing
> that type of weird sysctl output (since it depends solely on _BST).
> Your hope is to use acpiconf(8) i.e acpiconf -i <battery number>.
> Unfortunately, acpiconf itself does not display all possible
> values.
> 
> Try this patch against usr.sbin/acpi/acpiconf/acpiconf.c
> 
>   http://people.freebsd.org/~ariff/acpi/acpiconf.c.diff
> 
> Hopefully you will have the proper output in terms of percentage.
> You won't have advance battery status such as remaining time and few
> others. This is a limitation for BIOSes without _BST.
> 
> I believe Nate Lawson is the right person to comment on this.

I looked at the patch but had a hard time figuring out what the 
functional changes are.  Most of the changes are just using a 
convenience pointer to see the struct members and some style 
misformatting of the printf arguments.  (The second line of indentation 
needs to be 4 spaces indented, see style(9)).

What part of this patch is just the functional change?


-- 
Nate