Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:32:30 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: "freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org" <freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: do we always have acpi_cpu for a cpu? Message-ID: <504EDAFE.3000601@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I think that we always expect to have a one-to-one correspondence between
acpi_cpu devices and actual (APIC) CPUs. acpi_pcpu_get_id() seems to even
assert that, if I am reading the code correctly.
The following patch adds the assert to acpi_cpu_idle as well and also removes
what I believe to be an obsolete comment about HTT CPUs.
acpi_cpu: expect every cpu to have a corresponding acpi_cpu object
... via Processor object in ASL namespace.
diff --git a/sys/dev/acpica/acpi_cpu.c b/sys/dev/acpica/acpi_cpu.c
index 15201f9..203ed02 100644
--- a/sys/dev/acpica/acpi_cpu.c
+++ b/sys/dev/acpica/acpi_cpu.c
@@ -925,23 +925,15 @@ acpi_cpu_idle()
uint32_t start_time, end_time;
int bm_active, cx_next_idx, i;
+ sc = cpu_softc[PCPU_GET(cpuid)];
+ KASSERT(sc != NULL, ("acpi_cpu_idle: CPU without ACPI CPU"));
+
/* If disabled, return immediately. */
if (cpu_disable_idle) {
ACPI_ENABLE_IRQS();
return;
}
- /*
- * Look up our CPU id to get our softc. If it's NULL, we'll use C1
- * since there is no ACPI processor object for this CPU. This occurs
- * for logical CPUs in the HTT case.
- */
- sc = cpu_softc[PCPU_GET(cpuid)];
- if (sc == NULL) {
- acpi_cpu_c1();
- return;
- }
-
/* Find the lowest state that has small enough latency. */
cx_next_idx = 0;
if (cpu_disable_deep_sleep)
--
Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?504EDAFE.3000601>