Re: Somewhat important ACPI diff

2013-05-26 Thread Martijn van Duren
Maybe a bit late, but this diff appears to have fixed my acpitz bug.[1] Since it was somewhat irregular I wanted to test it for a little longer. Thank you so much for fixing this. [1] http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-bugs&m=136539785515806&w=2 On 05/20/13 18:57, Mark Kettenis wrote: As diagnosed b

Re: Somewhat important ACPI diff

2013-05-21 Thread Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas
Hi, No problem here on a samsung NC10, including suspend/resume. No dmesg change. -- Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas PGP Key fingerprint: 61DB D9A0 00A4 67CF 2A90 8961 6191 8FBF 06A1 1494 OpenBSD 5.3-current (GENERIC) #29: Tue May 21 10:48:51 CEST 2013 j...@shannon.wxcvbn.org:/usr/src/sys/arch/i3

Re: Somewhat important ACPI diff

2013-05-21 Thread Mark Kettenis
> From: Henri Kemppainen > Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 10:50:19 +0300 (EEST) > > > + if (blen > aml_intlen) { > > + if (mode == ACPI_IOREAD) { > > + /* Read from a large field: create buffer */ > > + _aml_setvalue(val, AML_OBJTYPE_BUFFER, > > +

Re: Somewhat important ACPI diff

2013-05-21 Thread Gregor Best
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:15:02AM +0400, Vadim Zhukov wrote: > [...] > ThinkPad X201i, fine here for an half a day (running since the time you > posted the diff). dmesg doesn't have any borked stuff, suspend/resume works > fine, both for short and long periods. > [...] Likewise with my Thinkpad R

Re: Somewhat important ACPI diff

2013-05-20 Thread Vadim Zhukov
2013/5/20 Mark Kettenis > As diagnosed by some other people (armani@, jcs@?) a while ago, our > code to deal with IndexField() operators in our AML interpreter is > quite broken. It works for fields that are less than a byte in size, > but anything else is pretty much completely busted. I would

Re: Somewhat important ACPI diff

2013-05-20 Thread Kyle Milz
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 06:57:56PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > As diagnosed by some other people (armani@, jcs@?) a while ago, our > code to deal with IndexField() operators in our AML interpreter is > quite broken. It works for fields that are less than a byte in size, > but anything else is pr

Re: Somewhat important ACPI diff

2013-05-20 Thread Kenneth R Westerback
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 06:57:56PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > As diagnosed by some other people (armani@, jcs@?) a while ago, our > code to deal with IndexField() operators in our AML interpreter is > quite broken. It works for fields that are less than a byte in size, > but anything else is pr

Re: Somewhat important ACPI diff

2013-05-20 Thread James Turner
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 06:57:56PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > As diagnosed by some other people (armani@, jcs@?) a while ago, our > code to deal with IndexField() operators in our AML interpreter is > quite broken. It works for fields that are less than a byte in size, > but anything else is pr

Re: Somewhat important ACPI diff

2013-05-20 Thread Timo Myyrä
Mark Kettenis writes: > As diagnosed by some other people (armani@, jcs@?) a while ago, our > code to deal with IndexField() operators in our AML interpreter is > quite broken. It works for fields that are less than a byte in size, > but anything else is pretty much completely busted. I wouldn'

Somewhat important ACPI diff

2013-05-20 Thread Mark Kettenis
As diagnosed by some other people (armani@, jcs@?) a while ago, our code to deal with IndexField() operators in our AML interpreter is quite broken. It works for fields that are less than a byte in size, but anything else is pretty much completely busted. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the ca