ACPI: Looking for DSDT ... not found! (message during boot)
Bug #58386 reported by
jerryb
This bug affects 2 people
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Linux |
Invalid
|
Medium
|
|||
linux (Ubuntu) |
Fix Released
|
Low
|
Colin Ian King | ||
linux-source-2.6.15 (Ubuntu) |
Won't Fix
|
Wishlist
|
Unassigned | ||
linux-source-2.6.22 (Ubuntu) |
Won't Fix
|
Wishlist
|
Unassigned |
Bug Description
on my ASUS M2nPV-VM mainboard with AMD64-X2 CPU running 2.6.15.26, I receive this error message:
ACPI: Looking for DSDT ... not found!
I filed this as a kernel bug
http://
but was told that:
"This message is not in the kernel.org kernel source tree, either
as of 2.6.15, or as of 2.6.18. While your system seems to have
plenty of other problems, ACPI did find the DSDT and it is running
normally.
"I expect this message comes from the "initrd DSDT override patch"
that some distributions, such as SuSE and Ubuntu tend to add to
the kernel."
Since this is apparently not a real kernel bug, but something to do with ubuntu's initrd, I am posting the bug here
Changed in linux: | |
status: | Unknown → Rejected |
Changed in linux-source-2.6.15: | |
assignee: | jcorbier → nobody |
Changed in linux: | |
assignee: | ubuntu-kernel-acpi → colin-king |
status: | Triaged → In Progress |
Changed in linux: | |
status: | In Progress → Fix Committed |
Changed in linux: | |
importance: | Unknown → Medium |
Changed in linux-source-2.6.15 (Ubuntu): | |
assignee: | Registry Administrators (registry) → nobody |
Changed in linux-source-2.6.22 (Ubuntu): | |
assignee: | Registry Administrators (registry) → nobody |
To post a comment you must log in.
I like to add that this message still appears in the 2.6.17-10-generic (amd64 or x86_64) kernel in Edgy Beta. Yet, earlier in the boot messages it appears that ACPI: DSDT ... is indeed found and used. The file /proc/acpi/dsdt is indeed present, and not empty.
As a matter of interest, I also use a 2.6.17 (amd64) kernel on a Gentoo box, here the offending message is absent. So, it would indeed appear the result of some Ubuntu patch.