Hi, 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: > Hello, > > 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 100. > 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 module. Erich _______________________________________________ freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-acpi-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
