Bug 39228 – ACPI issue prevents fan and battery monitor from working properly

• Status: RESOLVED UPSTREAM
• Product: Gentoo Linux

[Description Brant Gurganus 2004-01-23 23:11:30 UTC]

There is an issue relating to how the Compaq Evo N800w laptop handles ACPI that prevents various ACPI modules and KDE's battery monitor from working properly.  I had filed this bug with the kernel.org bugzilla and a patch was created that fixed the issue.

Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Run linux without the patch in Bug 1690 applied.
Actual Results:  
ACPI modules do not work properly and KDE's battery monitor does not work.	 

Expected Results:  
The ACPI modules work as does the battery monitor in KDE. 

I have tested the patch in the linked bug 1690 and it works fine for me.

[Comment 1 Brant Gurganus 2004-01-23 23:12:42 UTC]

Note that this applies cleanly to the gentoo-sources-2.4.22-r5.

[Comment 2 Tim Yamin (RETIRED) 2004-01-24 02:12:10 UTC]

Thanks for reporting this, but I don't see how bug 1690 is possibly close to being related to ACPI problems - it just seems to be a patch for GNU parted...

[Comment 3 Brant Gurganus 2004-01-24 10:30:25 UTC]

I am referring to kernel issue 1690 (from the kernel's bugzilla), not the bug 1690 in Gentoo's bugzilla.

[Comment 4 Jason Cox (RETIRED) 2004-04-08 22:29:57 UTC]

Is this fixed for you in later kernels?

[Comment 5 Brant Gurganus 2004-04-08 23:38:11 UTC]

No, I must still apply the patch in kernel bug 1690 to fix the issue.

[Comment 6 Jason Cox (RETIRED) 2004-04-08 23:54:07 UTC]

Have you tried running a later kernel without the patch? Or is it broken on every kernel?

[Comment 7 Brant Gurganus 2004-04-09 00:05:24 UTC]

Yes, I've tried vanilla kernels and the ACPI issues appear unless I apply that patch.

[Comment 8 Jason Cox (RETIRED) 2004-04-09 00:34:41 UTC]

Which kernels have you tried?

[Comment 9 Jason Cox (RETIRED) 2004-04-09 02:53:57 UTC]

I think this is something that the acpi maintainer needs to clean up first. Once he's cleaned it up, it'll go mainstream, so I think this is something we're going to have to leave for upstream.

[Comment 10 Tim Yamin (RETIRED) 2004-04-09 04:32:26 UTC]

Would you be able to file a bug at http://bugme.osdl.org so that the upstream developers could have a look at this? You might want to reference both bugs and include the patch which solves the problem for you.

Thanks!

[Comment 11 Brant Gurganus 2004-04-09 08:45:19 UTC]

Tim, it looks like you misunderstood my references to kernel bug 1690.  I was referring to http://bugme.osdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1690 which is the bug I had filed with them previously.  They had marked it as closed code_fix which their documentation indicates means that it has been integrated into the kernel.  However, a while ago I had asked about it and the reopened it and it appears they are investigating it for inclusion in the ACPI CA system.

[Comment 12 Jason Cox (RETIRED) 2004-04-09 08:49:45 UTC]

Which is why we're leaving it for upstream to sort out. They're investigating it for a reason. Let's just leave them to there work and it'l make it mainstream when it's ready.