From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 2 21:50:38 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 509F1106566B; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 21:50:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@freebsd.org) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F8238FC15; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 21:50:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from porto.topspin.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.100]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id XAA21150; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 23:50:34 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from avg@freebsd.org) Received: from localhost.topspin.kiev.ua ([127.0.0.1]) by porto.topspin.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1PDOkU-00070d-9Y; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 23:50:34 +0200 Message-ID: <4CD087A9.4000809@freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 23:50:33 +0200 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101029 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jung-uk Kim References: <201010121209.06397.hselasky@c2i.net> <201011021614.07631.jkim@FreeBSD.org> <201011021624.38882.jhb@freebsd.org> <201011021650.22657.jkim@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <201011021650.22657.jkim@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Moore, Robert" , freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org, Lin Ming Subject: Re: MacBookPro 5,1 X-BeenThere: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: ACPI and power management development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 21:50:38 -0000 on 02/11/2010 22:50 Jung-uk Kim said the following: > Yes, I understand. However, ACPICA is expecting the same size of > buffer *including* the optional parts if I am reading the code right. Hmm, where is ACPICA doing that? I didn't see any connection between what *ACPICA* can return to OS in _CRS/_PRS and what OS can pass in _SRS. > Besides, I don't think there is any harm in doing the right > thing. ;-) I don't think that this is any "righter" than zero-ing out resource source description string. BIOS/firmware can't possibly use that for anything meaningful, IMO. -- Andriy Gapon