Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>