Bug 1129 - CONFIG_ACPI_RELAXED_AML is in 2.4 but not 2.6
Summary: CONFIG_ACPI_RELAXED_AML is in 2.4 but not 2.6
Status: CLOSED CODE_FIX
Alias: None
Product: ACPI
Classification: Unclassified
Component: ACPICA-Core (show other bugs)
Hardware: i386 Linux
: P2 normal
Assignee: Len Brown
URL:
Keywords:
: 1248 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2003-08-20 20:19 UTC by Len Brown
Modified: 2006-09-28 13:21 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Kernel Version: 2.6.0-test3
Subsystem:
Regression: ---
Bisected commit-id:

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Description Len Brown 2003-08-20 20:19:09 UTC 
This options allows emulation of bugs in Microsoft's AML interpreter, which 
tolerate coding errors not caught by Microsoft's AML compiler.  A slippery 
slope indeed, but it is easier than getting the OEM's to fix their BIOS.
Comment 1 Andy Grover 2003-08-24 05:25:54 UTC 
How old are the BIOSes on the machines RELAXED_AML fixes? Because we only do 
ACPI on >=2001 right?
Comment 2 Len Brown 2003-10-07 13:35:04 UTC 
google lasts finds this message on LKML for an IBM ThinkPad R40 in August 2003, 
significantly newer than 2001.  I think that Toshiba was the notorious 
one here, but they apparently fixed their BIOS at some point. 
 
                                         ACPI_REPORT_WARNING(( 
                                                "The ACPI AML in your computer contains errors, " 
                                                "please nag the manufacturer to correct it.\n")); 
                                        ACPI_REPORT_WARNING(( 
                                                "Allowing relaxed access to fields; " 
                                                "turn on CONFIG_ACPI_DEBUG for details.\n")); 
 
If we don't see this message anymore, we can remove the workaround; 
though that may prove a problem for old laptop users with no BIOS upgrade option 
who currently use acpi=force to get past the 2001 cutoff. 
 
As of 2.6.0-test6 this workaround is in both 2.6 and 2.4.
Comment 3 Len Brown 2003-12-02 20:25:24 UTC 
*** Bug 1248 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.