sorry for the late reply. As usual, I have had to travel and did not get a
chance to connect to the Internet.
On Thursday, June 28, 2012 05:08:57 PM Natacha Porté wrote:
> on Wednesday 27 June 2012 at 07:38, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> > I have also an X220. My experience differs a bit.
> Would you have any idea about why you see a better behavior?
> I'm using a 9-STABLE with only "LEN0086" addition and Intel_GPU patches
> form CURRENT. Could it be caused by new developments in CURRENT? Or have
> you modified or configured something?
let me tell you my experience. I have had a horrible experience with 9. I mean,
horrible compared to what I normally experience with FreeBSD. I simply did not
get it working at all. As I needed the machine, I installed Fedora 16. At least
it worked. I was most happy when I could install FreeBSD 10 and it worked after
I did not need that machine that urgent for work anymore.
> Would you have any idea on what can be done to further diagnose such
> differences in behavior?
> For the reference, in case it might help, here are some relevant sysctl:
> $ sysctl hw.acpi
Let me compare;
> hw.acpi.battery.life: -1
How did you get this value? No battery inserted? The range should be from 0 to
> hw.acpi.battery.time: -1
> hw.acpi.battery.state: 7
I have 0 here.
> hw.acpi.acline: 1
Mine runs currently also on AC.
> $ sysctl dev.acpi_ibm
I do not have anything with IBM or Lenovo.
I also did not load anything specific for the X220 except of the Intel KMS
email@example.com mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-acpi-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"