On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 02:18:25PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2016/04/28 08:56, stan wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 08:44:49AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > > Stan, can you send the information that is output when you run > > > sendbug -P as root? Just putting the whole thing inline in a > > > reply-to-all to this mail would be fine. Please add "sysctl hw" > > > output as well. Ideally we want a way to identify the watchdog > > > itself rather than the general machine type etc. which is why > > > I'm hoping they follow Microsoft's spec (which is the de-facto > > > standard for this). > > > > > > Sorry got distracted and frgot to cc the list. > > OK, pity, there doesn't seem to be anything to properly identify > the watchdog in acpi tables. Just the vendor-specific thing which > needs reading to figure things out further. If they had followed > the usual spec then the driver would have been *very* generally > useful. > > In that case maybe the approach would be to do something similar > to acpithinkpad, but matching SECD instead of MHKV, and then > looking for the SEL0002 HID. But I only know a bit about how > to find my way round the decompiled files, so ignore me if > a real ACPI hacker steps in with a better idea ;) > > > hw.vendor=Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, Inc. > > hw.product=SEL-3355 > > An alternative might be to match on vendor/product, see the last > commit to sys/dev/ic/re.c for how to do this, but then you're > having to look at fixed addresses which they seem to be providing > via acpi. >
As I look at what the vendor did, I discover they were working in the arch/i386 codebase. 2 questions. First should this not be in amd64, as this is a 64 bit machine, and if so does that change any of the discussions as to how to detect the hardware? -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
