ACPI in boot log.

[home user]

Good afternoon,

(f39 standalone workstation last patched Thursday, August 29)

My boot log (from journalctl -b > jlog.txt) contains the messages below.  Note that for context, I'm including the last 5 lines before the errors and the first 5 lines after the errors.  I left in short sequences of intervening lines; those might also provide context.  I also added line numbers.

- - - - - -

727 Aug 30 02:10:31 coyote kernel: usb 1-1: new high-speed USB device number 2 using ehci-pci
  728 Aug 30 02:10:31 coyote kernel: usb 3-1: new high-speed USB device number 2 using ehci-pci
  729 Aug 30 02:10:31 coyote kernel: ata7: SATA link down (SStatus 0 SControl 300)
  730 Aug 30 02:10:31 coyote kernel: ata1: SATA link up 6.0 Gbps (SStatus 133 SControl 300)
  731 Aug 30 02:10:31 coyote kernel: ata5: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 300)
  732 Aug 30 02:10:31 coyote kernel: ACPI BIOS Error (bug): Could not resolve symbol [_SB.PCI0.SAT0.SPT0._GTF.DSSP], AE_NOT_FOUND (20240322/psargs-330)
  733 Aug 30 02:10:31 coyote kernel: ACPI Error: Aborting method _SB.PCI0.SAT0.SPT0._GTF due to previous error (AE_NOT_FOUND) (20240322/psparse-529)
  734 Aug 30 02:10:31 coyote kernel: ata1.00: ATA-9: ST2000DM006-2DM164, CC26, max UDMA/133
  735 Aug 30 02:10:31 coyote kernel: ata1.00: 3907029168 sectors, multi 16: LBA48 NCQ (depth 32), AA
  736 Aug 30 02:10:31 coyote kernel: ACPI BIOS Error (bug): Could not resolve symbol [_SB.PCI0.SAT0.SPT0._GTF.DSSP], AE_NOT_FOUND (20240322/psargs-330)
  737 Aug 30 02:10:31 coyote kernel: ACPI Error: Aborting method _SB.PCI0.SAT0.SPT0._GTF due to previous error (AE_NOT_FOUND) (20240322/psparse-529)
  738 Aug 30 02:10:31 coyote kernel: ata1.00: configured for UDMA/133
  739 Aug 30 02:10:31 coyote kernel: scsi 0:0:0:0: Direct-Access     ATA      ST2000DM006-2DM1 CC26 PQ: 0 ANSI: 5
  740 Aug 30 02:10:31 coyote kernel: ACPI BIOS Error (bug): Could not resolve symbol [_SB.PCI0.SAT0.SPT4._GTF.DSSP], AE_NOT_FOUND (20240322/psargs-330)
  741 Aug 30 02:10:31 coyote kernel: sd 0:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg0 type 0
  742 Aug 30 02:10:31 coyote kernel: sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] 3907029168 512-byte logical blocks: (2.00 TB/1.82 TiB)
  743 Aug 30 02:10:31 coyote kernel: sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] 4096-byte physical blocks
  744 Aug 30 02:10:31 coyote kernel: sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write Protect is off
  745 Aug 30 02:10:31 coyote kernel: sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00
  746 Aug 30 02:10:31 coyote kernel: sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, doesn't support DPO or FUA
  747 Aug 30 02:10:31 coyote kernel: sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Preferred minimum I/O size 4096 bytes
  748 Aug 30 02:10:31 coyote kernel: ACPI Error: Aborting method _SB.PCI0.SAT0.SPT4._GTF due to previous error (AE_NOT_FOUND) (20240322/psparse-529)
  749 Aug 30 02:10:31 coyote kernel: ata5.00: ATAPI: HL-DT-ST BD-RE  BH14NS40, 1.00, max UDMA/100
  750 Aug 30 02:10:31 coyote kernel: ata3: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 300)
  751 Aug 30 02:10:31 coyote kernel: ata9: SATA link down (SStatus 0 SControl 300)
  752 Aug 30 02:10:31 coyote kernel: ACPI BIOS Error (bug): Could not resolve symbol [_SB.PCI0.SAT0.SPT4._GTF.DSSP], AE_NOT_FOUND (20240322/psargs-330)
  753 Aug 30 02:10:31 coyote kernel: ACPI Error: Aborting method _SB.PCI0.SAT0.SPT4._GTF due to previous error (AE_NOT_FOUND) (20240322/psparse-529)
  754 Aug 30 02:10:31 coyote kernel: ata5.00: configured for UDMA/100
  755 Aug 30 02:10:31 coyote kernel: ACPI BIOS Error (bug): Could not resolve symbol [_SB.PCI0.SAT0.SPT2._GTF.DSSP], AE_NOT_FOUND (20240322/psargs-330)
  756 Aug 30 02:10:31 coyote kernel: ACPI Error: Aborting method _SB.PCI0.SAT0.SPT2._GTF due to previous error (AE_NOT_FOUND) (20240322/psparse-529)
  757 Aug 30 02:10:31 coyote kernel: ata3.00: ATAPI: PIONEER BD-RW   BDR-208M, 1.10, max UDMA/100
  758 Aug 30 02:10:31 coyote kernel: ACPI BIOS Error (bug): Could not resolve symbol [_SB.PCI0.SAT0.SPT2._GTF.DSSP], AE_NOT_FOUND (20240322/psargs-330)
  759 Aug 30 02:10:31 coyote kernel: ACPI Error: Aborting method _SB.PCI0.SAT0.SPT2._GTF due to previous error (AE_NOT_FOUND) (20240322/psparse-529)
  760 Aug 30 02:10:31 coyote kernel: ata3.00: configured for UDMA/100
  761 Aug 30 02:10:31 coyote kernel: scsi 2:0:0:0: CD-ROM            PIONEER  BD-RW   BDR-208M 1.10 PQ: 0 ANSI: 5
  762 Aug 30 02:10:31 coyote kernel: PM:   Magic number: 4:730:170
  763 Aug 30 02:10:31 coyote kernel: acpi device:33: hash matches
  764 Aug 30 02:10:31 coyote kernel: RAS: Correctable Errors collector initialized.

[... snip ...]

1181 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote audit[1]: SERVICE_STOP pid=1 uid=0 auid=4294967295 ses=4294967295 subj=system_u:system_r:init_t:s0 msg='unit=systemd-vconsole-setup comm="systemd" exe="/usr/lib/systemd/systemd" host     name=? addr=? terminal=? res=success'
1182 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote systemd[1]: Stopped systemd-vconsole-setup.service - Virtual Console Setup.
1183 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote systemd[1]: Stopping systemd-vconsole-setup.service - Virtual Console Setup...
1184 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote systemd[1]: Starting systemd-vconsole-setup.service - Virtual Console Setup...
1185 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote kernel: EDAC ie31200: No ECC support
1186 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote kernel: ACPI Warning: SystemIO range 0x0000000000000428-0x000000000000042F conflicts with OpRegion 0x0000000000000400-0x000000000000047F (\PMIO) (20240322/utaddress-204)
1187 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote kernel: ACPI: OSL: Resource conflict; ACPI support missing from driver?
1188 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote kernel: ACPI Warning: SystemIO range 0x0000000000000540-0x000000000000054F conflicts with OpRegion 0x0000000000000500-0x000000000000057F (_SB.PCI0.LPCB.GPBX) (20240322/utaddress-204     )
1189 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote kernel: ACPI Warning: SystemIO range 0x0000000000000540-0x000000000000054F conflicts with OpRegion 0x0000000000000500-0x0000000000000563 (\GPIO) (20240322/utaddress-204)
1190 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote kernel: ACPI: OSL: Resource conflict; ACPI support missing from driver?
1191 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote kernel: ACPI Warning: SystemIO range 0x0000000000000530-0x000000000000053F conflicts with OpRegion 0x0000000000000500-0x000000000000057F (_SB.PCI0.LPCB.GPBX) (20240322/utaddress-204     )
1192 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote kernel: ACPI Warning: SystemIO range 0x0000000000000530-0x000000000000053F conflicts with OpRegion 0x0000000000000500-0x0000000000000563 (\GPIO) (20240322/utaddress-204)
1193 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote kernel: ACPI: OSL: Resource conflict; ACPI support missing from driver?
1194 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote kernel: ACPI Warning: SystemIO range 0x0000000000000500-0x000000000000052F conflicts with OpRegion 0x0000000000000500-0x000000000000057F (_SB.PCI0.LPCB.GPBX) (20240322/utaddress-204     )
1195 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote kernel: ACPI Warning: SystemIO range 0x0000000000000500-0x000000000000052F conflicts with OpRegion 0x0000000000000500-0x0000000000000563 (\GPIO) (20240322/utaddress-204)
1196 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote kernel: ACPI: OSL: Resource conflict; ACPI support missing from driver?
1197 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote kernel: lpc_ich: Resource conflict(s) found affecting gpio_ich
1198 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote kernel: asus_wmi: ASUS WMI generic driver loaded
1199 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote kernel: asus_wmi: Initialization: 0x0
1200 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote kernel: asus_wmi: BIOS WMI version: 0.9
1201 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote kernel: asus_wmi: SFUN value: 0x0

- - - - - -

There are many lines of concern, having something to do with "ACPI".  Are these false alarms that I can ignore, or ticking time bombs that need attention soon, or a problem for which I've been lucky to not yet see symptoms (other than the log entries), or a major immediate problem?  There are numerous other lines containing "ACPI", but those do not look like errors or warnings.  I left those out.

I don't really know what "ACPI" is...
Annoying
Confusing
Puzzling
Information?
:)
Actually, I don't know what this really is or what (if anything) I should do about it.

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Fri, 2024-08-30 at 13:10 -0600, home user via users wrote:
> There are many lines of concern, having something to do with "ACPI". 
> Are these false alarms that I can ignore, or ticking time bombs that
> need attention soon, or a problem for which I've been lucky to not
> yet see symptoms (other than the log entries), or a major immediate
> problem?  There are numerous other lines containing "ACPI", but those
> do not look like errors or warnings.  I left those out.

Almost certainly they just indicate a limitation in your BIOS. ACPI
(Advanced Configuration and Power Interface) is part of the firmware
and older motherboards may not implement the full standard. I had that
for years before getting a new mobo recently and never had any issues
with it aside from the alarming messages in the journal.

You may be able to update your BIOS and reduce the number of errors,
but in general they are nothing to worry about (though I can't speak to
the specific errors you're getting).

poc

[Jeffrey Walton]

On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 3:11 PM home user via users
 wrote:
> [...]
> 1181 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote audit[1]: SERVICE_STOP pid=1 uid=0 auid=4294967295 ses=4294967295 subj=system_u:system_r:init_t:s0 msg='unit=systemd-vconsole-setup comm="systemd" exe="/usr/lib/systemd/systemd" host     name=? addr=? terminal=? res=success'
> 1182 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote systemd[1]: Stopped systemd-vconsole-setup.service - Virtual Console Setup.
> 1183 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote systemd[1]: Stopping systemd-vconsole-setup.service - Virtual Console Setup...
> 1184 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote systemd[1]: Starting systemd-vconsole-setup.service - Virtual Console Setup...
> 1185 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote kernel: EDAC ie31200: No ECC support
> 1186 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote kernel: ACPI Warning: SystemIO range 0x0000000000000428-0x000000000000042F conflicts with OpRegion 0x0000000000000400-0x000000000000047F (\PMIO) (20240322/utaddress-204)
> 1187 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote kernel: ACPI: OSL: Resource conflict; ACPI support missing from driver?
> 1188 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote kernel: ACPI Warning: SystemIO range 0x0000000000000540-0x000000000000054F conflicts with OpRegion 0x0000000000000500-0x000000000000057F (_SB.PCI0.LPCB.GPBX) (20240322/utaddress-204     )
> 1189 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote kernel: ACPI Warning: SystemIO range 0x0000000000000540-0x000000000000054F conflicts with OpRegion 0x0000000000000500-0x0000000000000563 (\GPIO) (20240322/utaddress-204)
> 1190 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote kernel: ACPI: OSL: Resource conflict; ACPI support missing from driver?
> 1191 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote kernel: ACPI Warning: SystemIO range 0x0000000000000530-0x000000000000053F conflicts with OpRegion 0x0000000000000500-0x000000000000057F (_SB.PCI0.LPCB.GPBX) (20240322/utaddress-204     )
> 1192 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote kernel: ACPI Warning: SystemIO range 0x0000000000000530-0x000000000000053F conflicts with OpRegion 0x0000000000000500-0x0000000000000563 (\GPIO) (20240322/utaddress-204)
> 1193 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote kernel: ACPI: OSL: Resource conflict; ACPI support missing from driver?
> 1194 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote kernel: ACPI Warning: SystemIO range 0x0000000000000500-0x000000000000052F conflicts with OpRegion 0x0000000000000500-0x000000000000057F (_SB.PCI0.LPCB.GPBX) (20240322/utaddress-204     )
> 1195 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote kernel: ACPI Warning: SystemIO range 0x0000000000000500-0x000000000000052F conflicts with OpRegion 0x0000000000000500-0x0000000000000563 (\GPIO) (20240322/utaddress-204)
> 1196 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote kernel: ACPI: OSL: Resource conflict; ACPI support missing from driver?
> 1197 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote kernel: lpc_ich: Resource conflict(s) found affecting gpio_ich
> 1198 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote kernel: asus_wmi: ASUS WMI generic driver loaded
> 1199 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote kernel: asus_wmi: Initialization: 0x0
> 1200 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote kernel: asus_wmi: BIOS WMI version: 0.9
> 1201 Aug 30 08:10:44 coyote kernel: asus_wmi: SFUN value: 0x0
>
> There are many lines of concern, having something to do with "ACPI".  Are these false alarms that I can ignore, or ticking time bombs that need attention soon, or a problem for which I've been lucky to not yet see symptoms (other than the log entries), or a major immediate problem?  There are numerous other lines containing "ACPI", but those do not look like errors or warnings.  I left those out.
>
> Actually, I don't know what this really is or what (if anything) I should do about it.

ACPI tables are part of the firmware. You should update your BIOS/UEFI
to the latest version provided by the manufacturer, and then report
back.

If you have additional questions, please state the make/model of the
computer and the firmware revision.

Jeff

[home user]

On 8/30/24 5:39 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 3:11 PM home user via users
>  wrote:
> ACPI tables are part of the firmware. You should update your BIOS/UEFI
> to the latest version provided by the manufacturer, and then report
> back.
>
> If you have additional questions, please state the make/model of the
> computer and the firmware revision.

This is an 11+ year old workstation (tower, motherboard, and cpu chip).  I see nothing in "apropos", "dnfdragora", or "dnf info" to provide the needed information.

How do I get this information?

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Fri, 2024-08-30 at 18:31 -0600, home user via users wrote:
> On 8/30/24 5:39 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 3:11 PM home user via users
> >  wrote:
> > ACPI tables are part of the firmware. You should update your BIOS/UEFI
> > to the latest version provided by the manufacturer, and then report
> > back.
> >
> > If you have additional questions, please state the make/model of the
> > computer and the firmware revision.
>
> This is an 11+ year old workstation (tower, motherboard, and cpu chip).  I see nothing in "apropos", "dnfdragora", or "dnf info" to provide the needed information.
>
> How do I get this information?

You check the motherboard manufacturer's web page for BIOS updates. For
an 11-year old mobo it's unlikely that there'll be anything recent, but
you may get a more up to date version of the firmware than what you
have. In my case my mobo was also 11 years old (an MSI) and the last
update was several years ago. The mobo still worked but I got a new one
because I wanted M.2 slots and higher RAM capacity. Getting rid of the
ACPI warnings was a bonus.

poc

[home user]

On 8/31/24 5:36 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Fri, 2024-08-30 at 18:31 -0600, home user via users wrote:
> > On 8/30/24 5:39 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 3:11 PM home user via users
> > >  wrote:
> > > ACPI tables are part of the firmware. You should update your BIOS/UEFI
> > > to the latest version provided by the manufacturer, and then report
> > > back.
> > >
> > > If you have additional questions, please state the make/model of the
> > > computer and the firmware revision.
> >
> > This is an 11+ year old workstation (tower, motherboard, and cpu chip).  I see nothing in "apropos", "dnfdragora", or "dnf info" to provide the needed information.
> >
> > How do I get this information?
>
> You check the motherboard manufacturer's web page for BIOS updates. For
> an 11-year old mobo it's unlikely that there'll be anything recent, but
> you may get a more up to date version of the firmware than what you
> have. In my case my mobo was also 11 years old (an MSI) and the last
> update was several years ago. The mobo still worked but I got a new one
> because I wanted M.2 slots and higher RAM capacity. Getting rid of the
> ACPI warnings was a bonus.
>
> poc

My apologies for wording my question vaguely.

I think that when I bought this workstation 11 years ago, I bought the motherboard separately from the tower.  But it was 11 years ago, so I'm quite uncertain.  The motherboard might have come with the tower.  The tower has an ASUS tag on its front panel/door, but that's all.  Jeff wanted me to provide "make/model of the computer and the firmware revision".  I don't know how to get that information.

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Sat, 2024-08-31 at 09:26 -0600, home user via users wrote:
> > You check the motherboard manufacturer's web page for BIOS updates. For
> > an 11-year old mobo it's unlikely that there'll be anything recent, but
> > you may get a more up to date version of the firmware than what you
> > have. In my case my mobo was also 11 years old (an MSI) and the last
> > update was several years ago. The mobo still worked but I got a new one
> > because I wanted M.2 slots and higher RAM capacity. Getting rid of the
> > ACPI warnings was a bonus.
> >
> > poc
>
> My apologies for wording my question vaguely.
>
> I think that when I bought this workstation 11 years ago, I bought
> the motherboard separately from the tower.  But it was 11 years ago,
> so I'm quite uncertain.  The motherboard might have come with the
> tower.  The tower has an ASUS tag on its front panel/door, but that's
> all.  Jeff wanted me to provide "make/model of the computer and the
> firmware revision".  I don't know how to get that information.

Use inxi, e.g.:

$ sudo inxi -M
Machine:
  Type: Desktop System: Micro-Star product: MS-7E27 v: 1.0 serial: N/A
  Mobo: Micro-Star model: PRO B650M-P (MS-7E27) v: 1.0
    serial: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX: American Megatrends LLC. v: 1.B0
    date: 07/25/2024

dmidecode may also be useful (man dmidecode).

poc

[home user]

On 8/31/24 10:58 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Sat, 2024-08-31 at 09:26 -0600, home user via users wrote:
> > My apologies for wording my question vaguely.
> >
> > I think that when I bought this workstation 11 years ago, I bought
> > the motherboard separately from the tower.  But it was 11 years ago,
> > so I'm quite uncertain.  The motherboard might have come with the
> > tower.  The tower has an ASUS tag on its front panel/door, but that's
> > all.  Jeff wanted me to provide "make/model of the computer and the
> > firmware revision".  I don't know how to get that information.
>
> Use inxi, e.g.:
>
> $ sudo inxi -M
> Machine:
>    Type: Desktop System: Micro-Star product: MS-7E27 v: 1.0 serial: N/A
>    Mobo: Micro-Star model: PRO B650M-P (MS-7E27) v: 1.0
>      serial: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX: American Megatrends LLC. v: 1.B0
>      date: 07/25/2024
>
> dmidecode may also be useful (man dmidecode).

-bash.1[~]: inxi -M
Machine:
   Type: Desktop Mobo: ASUSTeK model: SABERTOOTH Z77 v: Rev 1.xx
     serial: [private] BIOS: American Megatrends v: 1805 date: 12/19/2012
-bash.2[~]:

Thank-you, Patrick.

[home user]

On 8/30/24 5:39 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 3:11 PM home user via users
> ACPI tables are part of the firmware. You should update your BIOS/UEFI
> to the latest version provided by the manufacturer, and then report
> back.
>
> If you have additional questions, please state the make/model of the
> computer and the firmware revision.

This workstation is a dual-boot system, the other OS being windows-7.

Actually, in light of what Patrick said, is this going to be worth the trouble?

[Barry Scott]

> On 31 Aug 2024, at 01:46, home user via users  wrote:
>
> Actually, in light of what Patrick said, is this going to be worth the trouble?

Give the age and the system is working I would not change the BIOS.

barry

solved: ACPI in boot log.

[home user]

On 8/30/24 1:10 PM, home user via users wrote:
> Good afternoon,
>
> (f39 standalone workstation last patched Thursday, August 29)
>
> My boot log (from journalctl -b > jlog.txt) contains the messages below.  Note that for context, I'm including the last 5 lines before the errors and the first 5 lines after the errors.  I left in short sequences of intervening lines; those might also provide context.  I also added line numbers.

[snip]
> There are many lines of concern, having something to do with "ACPI".  Are these false alarms that I can ignore, or ticking time bombs that need attention soon, or a problem for which I've been lucky to not yet see symptoms (other than the log entries), or a major immediate problem?  There are numerous other lines containing "ACPI", but those do not look like errors or warnings.  I left those out.
>
> I don't really know what "ACPI" is...
> Annoying
> Confusing
> Puzzling
> Information?
> :)
> Actually, I don't know what this really is or what (if anything) I should do about it.

Based on the advice from this list, I'm going with the ACPI messages being a real problem neither now nor in the foreseeable future.

I thank all who tried to help.

Bill.