From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 1 19:32:35 2008 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 9DA68106564A for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 19:32:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from server.baldwin.cx (bigknife-pt.tunnel.tserv9.chi1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f10:75::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ABA98FC22 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 19:32:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from localhost.corp.yahoo.com (john@localhost [IPv6:::1]) (authenticated bits=0) by server.baldwin.cx (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id mB1JW7SV099801; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:32:20 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 12:12:45 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <200811251835.mAPIZFIC002676@sana.init-main.com> In-Reply-To: <200811251835.mAPIZFIC002676@sana.init-main.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200812011212.45582.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.2 (server.baldwin.cx [IPv6:::1]); Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:32:22 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.93.1/8704/Mon Dec 1 11:39:36 2008 on server.baldwin.cx X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=4.2 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,NO_RELAYS autolearn=ham version=3.1.3 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on server.baldwin.cx Cc: Subject: Re: acpi_cpu: binding processor object to pcpu struct. 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: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:32:35 -0000 On Tuesday 25 November 2008 01:35:15 pm Takanori Watanabe wrote: > In my box, processor does not binded properly to ACPI object, > so I wrote the code as follows. > comment? > > I'm afraid system pcpu unit number and cpu device instance number > may inconsistent, but without this change, ACPI namespace and > pcpu struct does not match. Hmm, so is the issue that the acpi_cpu driver expects processor objects to be listed in the same order in _PR_ as in the MADT? If so, then that is probably a false assumption. The MADT should always have ACPI IDs for non-UP systems. OTOH, the comment in the code in acpi_cpu_attach() indicates that some boxes do not use the same ProcID value in processor objects and MADT entries and your patch breaks that case. I will look at the spec to see how this is supposed to work. -- John Baldwin