Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:54:39 -0700 From: Sean Bruno <seanbru@yahoo-inc.com> To: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "sbruno@freebsd.org" <sbruno@FreeBSD.org>, "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. Message-ID: <1340225679.2858.26.camel@powernoodle.corp.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <4FE23004.3080609@FreeBSD.org> References: <1340121728.5203.8.camel@powernoodle> <4FE0EA24.6000906@FreeBSD.org> <1340142162.3201.12.camel@powernoodle.corp.yahoo.com> <4FE158FF.5070209@FreeBSD.org> <1340208849.2858.2.camel@powernoodle.corp.yahoo.com> <4FE23004.3080609@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 13:18 -0700, Andriy Gapon wrote: > > I also, disagree with the idea of "FreeBSD C-states" as that is not > the > > intention of the code. The code, from my read, is trying to > interpret > > C-states as though they are always defined sequentially and > non-sparse. > > I seem to recall that this is an ACPI requirement. I could be > mistaken, but no > time to double-check at the moment. > > Just to check as I'm actively looking at this code I went and grabbed the December 6, 2011 ACPI spec. http://www.acpi.info/spec.htm chap 8.1 pretty clearly states that C2 and C3 are optional states. So it appears that you can have a C3 without a C2. So, I suspect that the idea that the index the cx_states array is always going to be 1 less that the ACPI Cstate value isn't by spec. Or something ... :-) Sean "I have no idea how computers work" Bruno
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1340225679.2858.26.camel>