From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jun 20 16:44:47 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 790F0106566C;
	Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:44:47 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from seanbru@yahoo-inc.com)
Received: from mrout1-b.corp.bf1.yahoo.com (mrout1-b.corp.bf1.yahoo.com
	[98.139.253.104])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2419C8FC17;
	Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:44:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (rideseveral.corp.yahoo.com [10.73.160.231])
	by mrout1-b.corp.bf1.yahoo.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/y.out) with ESMTP id
	q5KGi8qI031100; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:44:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=yahoo-inc.com;
	s=cobra; t=1340210649;
	bh=ty5wrM8xyapNlyQqA2HCMe+hA/5p8YRGof/78+uP004=;
	h=Subject:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date:
	Message-ID:Mime-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
	b=w1P1ebKp3knfFbe86Fh4h7skiTIWFmpzMF3Fz0zfyFRch2uW1zdHOBVjbf4B8I8DA
	yYbns6DBLm3ir+c8uePpjEJ+0tgpFBAjsO35EF6RT0i/52fQFUZt+MP80GaKEB0Jrr
	1/NsNahQts3aVPymDp6YJi5imCJrMeYpKw0dbL24=
From: Sean Bruno <seanbru@yahoo-inc.com>
To: "sbruno@freebsd.org" <sbruno@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <1340121728.5203.8.camel@powernoodle>
References: <1340121728.5203.8.camel@powernoodle>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:44:08 -0700
Message-ID: <1340210648.2858.9.camel@powernoodle.corp.yahoo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Milter-Version: master.31+4-gbc07cd5+
X-CLX-ID: 210649002
Cc: "freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org" <freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: [CFT] Sparse Cstate Support -- Its possible, that I don't know
 what I'm doing.
X-BeenThere: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: ACPI and power management development <freebsd-acpi.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi>,
	<mailto:freebsd-acpi-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-acpi>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-acpi-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi>,
	<mailto:freebsd-acpi-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:44:47 -0000

On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 09:02 -0700, Sean Bruno wrote:
> http://people.freebsd.org/~sbruno/acpi_cpu_cstate_sparse.txt

also, I wanted to point out that I'm returning BUS_PROBE_GENERIC here.

I want to emulate the Intel acpi_idle code that exists in linux-land and
I *thought* that I could setup an acpi_cpu_idle module that would come
in at a higher priority on Intel cpus, however there's some SYSINIT()
hackery going on that I don't know how to handle gracefully.  I'm not
sure how to proceed with a different idle module here.  thoughts?

e.g.

static void
acpi_cpu_postattach(void *unused __unused)
{
    device_t *devices;
    int err;
    int i, n;

    err = devclass_get_devices(acpi_cpu_devclass, &devices, &n);
    if (err != 0) {
        printf("devclass_get_devices(acpi_cpu_devclass) failed\n");
        return;
    }
    for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
        bus_generic_probe(devices[i]);
    for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
        bus_generic_attach(devices[i]);
    free(devices, M_TEMP);
}

SYSINIT(acpi_cpu, SI_SUB_CONFIGURE, SI_ORDER_MIDDLE,
    acpi_cpu_postattach, NULL);