Removing acpi.ko support

Scott Long scottl at
Thu Oct 28 18:50:48 UTC 2010

On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Thursday, October 28, 2010 1:01:24 pm Scott Long wrote:
>> On Oct 28, 2010, at 10:54 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
>>> [ cc'ing acpi@ to be safe, but I think the topic warrants the wider audience
>>> of arch@ ]
>>> I think we should drop support for having acpi load as a module for i386.  It
>>> adds extra complication and hacks to the i386 APIC and interrupt code that are
>>> gratuitously different from amd64 as a result.  Originally it was made a
>>> module so that GENERIC on i386 did not include ACPI by default but would only
>>> use up memory to hold ACPI-related code if the machine supported ACPI.  Now
>>> that acpi is part of GENERIC on i386 in 8.0 and later this argument is no
>>> longer relevant.  I'd like to remove support for ACPI as a module to remove
>>> the various hacks on i386 and reduce differences with amd64.
>> Just to be clear, it'll still be an optional kernel device, it just won't be a KLD anymore, right?  If you do that, what will happen with the evil
> bootloader code that gropes around for the AML tables and auto-loads the module?  Is there any reason to keep that around for compatibility?  If it
> goes away, don't forget to also update the bootforth code that knows how to manipulate it.
> It already does the right thing in this case (it did regardless, but that was
> part of the testing before enabling 'device acpi' in GENERIC for 8.0).  If
> we remove the KLD support then we can now remove that code from the loader
> and Forth scripts as they will no longer be needed.

You lost me, what is "the right thing".  What I'm asking is whether there 
will be any surprises to people upgrading from 8.0 to 8.x with regard to 
the bootloader no longer autoloading acpi.ko, and will there be any 
surprises to those who update their bootblocks but maybe switch back and 
forth between old and new kernels?


More information about the freebsd-acpi mailing list