Julian Elischer wrote: > Nate Lawson wrote: >>>> Index: src/sys/i386/i386/pmap.c >>>> diff -u src/sys/i386/i386/pmap.c:1.582 src/sys/i386/i386/pmap.c:1.583 >>>> --- src/sys/i386/i386/pmap.c:1.582 Mon Mar 5 21:40:10 2007 >>>> +++ src/sys/i386/i386/pmap.c Wed Mar 14 22:30:02 2007 >>>> @@ -422,6 +422,13 @@ >>>> >>>> /* Turn on PG_G on kernel page(s) */ >>>> pmap_set_pg(); >>>> + >>>> + /* >>>> + * Create an identity mapping (virt == phys) for the low 1 MB >>>> + * physical memory region that is used by the ACPI wakeup code. >>>> + * This mapping must not have PG_G set. + */ >>>> + kernel_pmap->pm_pdir[0] = PG_PS | PG_RW | PG_V; >>>> } >>>> >>>> /* >> >> I propose conditionalizing this code on "if (pseflag)". Of course, the >> acpi suspend code will fail on 486's but we disable acpi entirely if the >> bios date < 1999/1/1 and acpi isn't supported on the 486. > > as long as you are keeping this in mind, I have no objection as to how > you tackle it.. > > so if someone uses a 486 based embedded system (low power etc.) > they can definitely not have any acpi support in the bios?
I will wait and see what others say. In general, I'm sure there are other aspects of ACPI that require a Pentium. And remember, they could still boot acpi with a 486 and use everything but suspend/resume. -- Nate _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
