Updates of resolution od Foxconn bug ( no debates please just updates)

[mjg59]

All you guys getting a "this motherboard does not support linux" answer from your support, just do what TheAllmighty did:

look if the board is advertised to be ACPI standard compliant. If it is, tell them you are not asking for Linux support, you are asking for standard compliance as advertised.

If you're going to do that, please ensure that you point out precisely which section of the ACPI specification is being broken. The AMI BIOS code appears to be compliant with the ACPI specification.

[Neckbeard]

If you're going to do that, please ensure that you point out precisely which section of the ACPI specification is being broken. The AMI BIOS code appears to be compliant with the ACPI specification.

http://izanbardprince.wordpress.com/...-and-my-reply/

I guess not.

Has anyone seen this yet?

Looks like a lot of motherboards with a bug ridden AMI BIOS

I have one of their boards and I'm going to be mad as hell if this doesn't get fixed.

This is unfolding very, very strangely I think.

[mjg59]

http://izanbardprince.wordpress.com/...-and-my-reply/

I guess not.

No. There's a difference between not being standards compliant and having a bug (though I remain unconvinced that there's a bug in anything other than Linux here). The AMI tables compile cleanly with the Intel reference compiler with the exception of some warnings that have nothing whatsoever to do with standards compliance. As I said, if you're going to complain to a board manufacturer about their standards compliance then make sure you can tell them which part of the standard they're violating. If you can't, then don't make the claim.

[Neckbeard]

No. There's a difference between not being standards compliant and having a bug (though I remain unconvinced that there's a bug in anything other than Linux here). The AMI tables compile cleanly with the Intel reference compiler with the exception of some warnings that have nothing whatsoever to do with standards compliance. As I said, if you're going to complain to a board manufacturer about their standards compliance then make sure you can tell them which part of the standard they're violating. If you can't, then don't make the claim.

http://izanbardprince.wordpress.com/...tt-kerfluffle/

I don't think he likes you very much.

[VMC]

I have a broken DSDT table but as yet I'm unable to fix it. I don't think I have a Foxconn motherboard. I have a Dell Optiplex system. I did dump the dmicode but nothing points to Foxconn.

I followed this link and found the point of my failure but can't find a fix:
http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Fix_Common_ACPI_Problems

Surprisingly my fan comes on and off with a defective DSDT table. Someone mentioned that it's built into the BIOS.

[Neckbeard]

I have a broken DSDT table but as yet I'm unable to fix it. I don't think I have a Foxconn motherboard. I have a Dell Optiplex system. I did dump the dmicode but nothing points to Foxconn.

I followed this link and found the point of my failure but can't find a fix:
http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Fix_Common_ACPI_Problems

Surprisingly my fan comes on and off with a defective DSDT table. Someone mentioned that it's built into the BIOS.

Looks like Foxconn makes some of those, but won't stand behind them, you have to go to Dell for that.

(good luck)

[rberger123]

If you're going to do that, please ensure that you point out precisely which section of the ACPI specification is being broken.

Most certainly, Sir.

We're all gonna try as hard as we can to find the point precisely. Albeit it might be much easier for the manufacturer, who has full access to all BIOS source code.

I mean, with the industry being so forthcoming, open and precise to us why would we want to serve them otherwise.

Thanks a lot for the reminder!

Best regards, Raimund

[mjg59]

Most certainly, Sir.

We're all gonna try as hard as we can to find the point precisely. Albeit it might be much easier for the manufacturer, who has full access to all BIOS source code.

One of the nice things about ACPI is that it's trivial to decompile, which means that anyone who has one of these boards has everything needed to test whether it complies with the ACPI spec or not. I can't find anything in the Foxconn tables that fails to conform (there's a checksum error in a table that's not part of the specification, so that's entirely irrelevant), but that's obviously not a guarantee. There's plenty of people claiming that there's a spec violation going on, so I'd love it if they could actually point out which bit of the spec is being violated and by which code.

[XeroxGUI]

http://service.foxconnchannel.com/ec...E6529C200B2C72

there's the response to my nasty complaint.

[knutschr]

One of the nice things about ACPI is that it's trivial to decompile, which means that anyone who has one of these boards has everything needed to test whether it complies with the ACPI spec or not. I can't find anything in the Foxconn tables that fails to conform (there's a checksum error in a table that's not part of the specification, so that's entirely irrelevant), but that's obviously not a guarantee. There's plenty of people claiming that there's a spec violation going on, so I'd love it if they could actually point out which bit of the spec is being violated and by which code.

I read of much interest your postings, as I understand you are very cunning in this matter.
None has answered my former questions, so I ask you to do it:
-Why has the BIOS a reference to "Linux" when there is no equal use of kernels in linux, and the kernels present themselves as the corresponding Windows version?
-Is this required?