Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 00:26:39 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.org, Vitaly Magerya <vmagerya@gmail.com> Subject: Re: (Missing) power states of an Atom N455-based netbook Message-ID: <4E0A470F.6090503@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <201106281514.36324.jkim@FreeBSD.org> References: <BANLkTim%2B1UwquMJ32WP8wZBGkYxPv78MLA@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTikmVUtLyANBSqYb%2BL-xkwQ4Zo51Eg@mail.gmail.com> <4E09BADF.7050702@FreeBSD.org> <201106281514.36324.jkim@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 28/06/2011 22:14 Jung-uk Kim said the following: > On Tuesday 28 June 2011 07:28 am, Andriy Gapon wrote: >> I think that part (but not all) of the differences between FreeBSD >> and Linux can be explained by the fact that FreeBSD currently >> doesn't advertise itself as featuring ACPI_CAP_SMP_C1_NATIVE and >> ACPI_CAP_SMP_C3_NATIVE. I am not sure what it would take to >> actually support these features. I think that Linux does support >> (or at least advertise support) for these features. > > Yes, Linux supports this Intel-specific feature. I think it shouldn't > be too hard for us, however. We just have to add support for > Intel-specific _CST FFH (Functional Fixed Hardware) in > sys/dev/acpica/acpi_cpu.c. You can find more information from "Intel > Processor Vendor-Specific ACPI" (order number 302223-005) on Intel > website. Also, arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cstate.c of Linux source may > help. I believe Linux actually supports all Intel-specific FFHs, > BTW. Once upon a time there was a patch proposed for FreeBSD: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.os.freebsd.current/127860/focus=6372 Unfortunately I have never really evaluated it. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E0A470F.6090503>