From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 28 21:26:42 2011 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 CBEB5106566B; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 21:26:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6DF68FC14; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 21:26:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from porto.starpoint.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.100]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id AAA13229; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 00:26:40 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by porto.starpoint.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1Qbfns-0005te-B8; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 00:26:40 +0300 Message-ID: <4E0A470F.6090503@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 00:26:39 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110503 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jung-uk Kim References: <4E09BADF.7050702@FreeBSD.org> <201106281514.36324.jkim@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <201106281514.36324.jkim@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.org, Vitaly Magerya Subject: Re: (Missing) power states of an Atom N455-based netbook 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: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 21:26:42 -0000 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