On 03/19/2015 04:10 AM, Ian Smith wrote: > On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 15:30:23 -0600, Warner Losh wrote: > > > On Mar 18, 2015, at 10:06 AM, Anthony Jenkins > <anthony.b.jenk...@att.net> wrote: > > > > > > On 03/18/2015 11:29 AM, Warner Losh wrote: > > >>> On Mar 17, 2015, at 7:02 AM, Anthony Jenkins > <anthony.b.jenk...@att.net> wrote: > > >>>> \Where else might ATRTC_VERBOSE be set otherwise? > > >>> I'm picturing a (future?) config(5) knob, e.g. > > >>> > > >>> device atrtc > > >>> options ATRTC_VERBOSE=1 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> so it can be set at compile time. > > >> Why not just boot verbose? history has shown too many options like > > >> this is hard to use. > > You can blame this on me :) I agree about the option not being needed; > the way it is you can just set sysctl hw.acpi.atrtc_verbose=0 to quell > reports of successful access, if it turns out these are routine on some > machines, especially outside of boot/suspend/resume contexts. > > However I'll still argue that, this being a new gadget and that we could > use finding out which vendors want to read or write which locations in > CMOS for whatever reason, at least while it's in head, we should log all > access by default unless setting atrtc_verbose=0,
So the default verbosity of ACPI CMOS region accesses should be "verbose"? I personally don't mind the default being "silent" and asking people triaging an ACPI problem to boot verbosely and send the logs (I think that's in the FreeBSD ACPI handbook anyway). > and in _any_ case we > should be logging attempts to R/W out-of-bounds CMOS locations. Error logs are always printed; they don't honor atrtc_verbose. > > > I think I understand what you're saying... I also prefer fewer config(5) > > > knobs. So you're suggesting I determine (at runtime) the boot verbose > > > setting (kenv(2) or however it's properly done) and dump the > > > compile-time verbosity setting? > > > > if (bootverbose) > > do verbose things; > > > > is how thatÿÿs done. > > Sure, and maybe successful access could be limited to bootverbose, and > we could ask people whose boxes fail to boot/suspend/resume/whatever to > boot verbose to reveal such as why Anthony's HP Envy either failed to > suspend or immediately resumed - which isn't entirely clear, even with > the messages - unless its ACPI AML succeeded in reading minute, hour and > weekday, but I have a feeling we may see more of this sort of thing. Now that I think about it, adding this ACPI CMOS region access should simply eliminate a class of failures where FreeBSD wasn't giving the BIOS access to CMOS. Logging /successful/ R/W accesses to CMOS by the BIOS (AML) won't really provide any useful info (IMHO), but the user can flip on bootverbose if she's curious. If a user's box fails to boot/suspend/resume/whatever, we'll see any ACPI CMOS region access errors. Anthony > cheers, Ian _______________________________________________ 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"
