Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 11:18:20 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: "freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org" <freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: do we always have acpi_cpu for a cpu? Message-ID: <50582E4C.8060107@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <504EDAFE.3000601@FreeBSD.org> References: <504EDAFE.3000601@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[ping]
on 11/09/2012 09:32 Andriy Gapon said the following:
>
> I think that we always expect to have a one-to-one correspondence between
> acpi_cpu devices and actual (APIC) CPUs. acpi_pcpu_get_id() seems to even
> assert that, if I am reading the code correctly.
>
> The following patch adds the assert to acpi_cpu_idle as well and also removes
> what I believe to be an obsolete comment about HTT CPUs.
>
> acpi_cpu: expect every cpu to have a corresponding acpi_cpu object
>
> ... via Processor object in ASL namespace.
>
> diff --git a/sys/dev/acpica/acpi_cpu.c b/sys/dev/acpica/acpi_cpu.c
> index 15201f9..203ed02 100644
> --- a/sys/dev/acpica/acpi_cpu.c
> +++ b/sys/dev/acpica/acpi_cpu.c
> @@ -925,23 +925,15 @@ acpi_cpu_idle()
> uint32_t start_time, end_time;
> int bm_active, cx_next_idx, i;
>
> + sc = cpu_softc[PCPU_GET(cpuid)];
> + KASSERT(sc != NULL, ("acpi_cpu_idle: CPU without ACPI CPU"));
> +
> /* If disabled, return immediately. */
> if (cpu_disable_idle) {
> ACPI_ENABLE_IRQS();
> return;
> }
>
> - /*
> - * Look up our CPU id to get our softc. If it's NULL, we'll use C1
> - * since there is no ACPI processor object for this CPU. This occurs
> - * for logical CPUs in the HTT case.
> - */
> - sc = cpu_softc[PCPU_GET(cpuid)];
> - if (sc == NULL) {
> - acpi_cpu_c1();
> - return;
> - }
> -
> /* Find the lowest state that has small enough latency. */
> cx_next_idx = 0;
> if (cpu_disable_deep_sleep)
>
--
Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50582E4C.8060107>