[coreboot] ACPI patches for Tyan s2895, s2892, s2891
r.marek at assembler.cz
Tue Mar 10 15:00:33 CET 2009
>> If you can explain to me why the superIO changes.
> For some reason the SuperIO puts the RTC at 0x400, even though it's
> usually at 0x70. If I put it at 0x70 the keyboard and mouse don't
> work :( I put it at 0x90 and corrected the size so that it wouldn't
> conflict with other devices. That makes Linux happy with it. It
> still could be a problem for Windows not to have it at 0x70.
Well maybe the RTC chip is elsewhere too?
>> Also The SMM does nothing to
>> do with IRQ9. Get rid of SMM for now. The IRQ 9 needs to be setup for ACPI in
>> SB. Thats it (and perhaps it needed also an IRQ override).
> Sorry I must have misunderstood this again. I thought this was why I
> keep getting : IRQ9 nobody cared messages from Linux.
What devices you think you have at IRQ9?
Maybe some spurious serial IRQ form superIO?
Generally IRQ9 is used as ACPI SCI int.
Just pressing the power button generates the IRQ for example. To make it work
1) Set IRQ9 in chipset as ACPI IRQ
2) Set the IRQ 9 override to level/low in MADT
3) Fill the FADT sci int to 9
I think you have 2) 3) I failed to find 1) Please check. Also
cat/proc/interrupts should state:
7: 0 0 IO-APIC-edge parport0
8: 1 0 IO-APIC-edge rtc0
9: 0 0 IO-APIC-fasteoi acpi
16: 1645904 0 IO-APIC-fasteoi uhci_hcd:usb1, ahci, nvidia
17: 0 0 IO-APIC-fasteoi uhci_hcd:usb2, ide0, ide1
The IRQ9 should be level/low - APIC-fasteoi
Please post /proc/interrupts
> It's the last thing that Linux complains about. I'm not sure what I
> should do so that somebody cares.
>> It looks fine, assuming it works for you then lets put it in. A lot of people is
>> trying to get ACPI working those days.
> It's mostly working.
>> Please note that some changes to second patch needs to be done too. For the
>> global acpik8_util
> Yes. I was trying to implement what I thought was the intent of the
> original. Since then I've taken out the VGA IO port regions and the
> DRAM region. It's a lot more complicated because I have multiple root
> buses. As far as I can tell the factory BIOS is also not 100%
> compliant with the spec, which is making it harder to see what's wrong
> with mine.
> My current state is hopefully better than what it was when I first
> submitted these patches, but the BSOD is the same.
More information about the coreboot