Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/sys/dev/acpi
To: Christos Zoulas <>
From: Quentin Garnier <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 12/13/2005 18:19:33
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 11:13:06AM -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> On Dec 13,  7:42am, (Jason Thorpe) wrote:
> -- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/sys/dev/acpi
> |=20
> | On Dec 12, 2005, at 4:59 PM, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> |=20
> | > You mean MI code? MachDep is just that. In this particular case, =20
> | > not every
> | > machine has ACPI. To compare, how about a machine that has =20
> | > turbochannel and
> | > needs a sysctl? I think that the precedence is hw.*, right?
> |=20
> | Where do other devices get inserted into the tree?
> hw.<device-instance>.<prop>
> =20
> | Anyway, I think hw.acpi.root might be OK.  Would allow for other ACPI =
> | nodes to be added later.
> Yes, hw.acpi.root sounds ok for now.

Ok, will do the change tonight.

By the way, do we want acpidump(8) in base or should I keep it in
pkgsrc?  FreeBSD has all the acpica userland in base along with it,
but I think it's a bit much, although acpidump(8) would not seem out of
its place in base.

(Their acpidump depends on acpica's iasl program to disassemble the

Quentin Garnier - -
"When I find the controls, I'll go where I like, I'll know where I want
to be, but maybe for now I'll stay right here on a silent sea."
KT Tunstall, Silent Sea, Eye to the Telescope, 2004.

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (NetBSD)