From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 3 15:15:43 2010 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 9A0DF1065676; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 15:15:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DB0A8FC28; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 15:15:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (66.111.2.69.static.nyinternet.net [66.111.2.69]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1007A46B0C; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:15:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from jhbbsd.localnet (smtp.hudson-trading.com [209.249.190.9]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 6E8328A024; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:15:42 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin To: Andriy Gapon Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:04:32 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.1 (FreeBSD/7.2-CBSD-20100120; KDE/4.3.1; amd64; ; ) References: <4B698DD8.4010404@icyb.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <4B698DD8.4010404@icyb.net.ua> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201002031004.32588.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0.1 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Wed, 03 Feb 2010 10:15:42 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.95.1 at bigwig.baldwin.cx X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=4.2 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on bigwig.baldwin.cx Cc: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: acpi_cpu: _PDC vs _OSC 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: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:15:43 -0000 On Wednesday 03 February 2010 9:53:12 am Andriy Gapon wrote: > > What do you think about changing logic of evaluating _PDC and _OSC for Processor > object in acpi_cpu_attach? > It seems that later versions of ACPI standard deprecate _PDC in favor of _OSC. > Although, in practice they seem to be present or not present together, sometimes > _PDC being only a wrappper around _OSC. There are still, of course, systems with > only _PDC present. I assume that there are systems with only _OSC too. > > I would like to change the order, so that _OSC evaluation is attempted first and > only if it fails then proceed with _PDC. > > Also, I would like to print status returned by _OSC (in case of successful > evaluation) if it is not zero. (Note: this is not the same as status of evaluating > _OSC). > > And I am going to fix the following comment: > * On some systems we need to evaluate _OSC so that the ASL > * loads the _PSS and/or _PDC methods at runtime. > > Although on many systems either _PDC or _OSC or both dynamically load SSDTs that > contain additional Processor objects like _PSS and _PCT, I haven't seen any system > where _OSC would load _PDC. And, honestly, that wouldn't make any sense. > Perhaps, comment's author meant _PCT in place of _PDC, or something like that. > > Please let me know what you think. > Thanks! This all sounds good to me. -- John Baldwin