From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 3 15:21:06 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 A4D521065679; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 15:21:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rpaulo@gmail.com) Received: from mail-fx0-f226.google.com (mail-fx0-f226.google.com [209.85.220.226]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A16E8FC13; Wed, 3 Feb 2010 15:21:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxm26 with SMTP id 26so556326fxm.13 for ; Wed, 03 Feb 2010 07:21:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:subject:mime-version :content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=Ysx2FA5pkRiD6QOMI6Le2JImu1pBbp+k+Vk4JsprmA0=; b=hsDykKwkeZAyDD39jFlUAR1b1BhwcCVbd1Lc08sqO4wvkIQrsvSt63WDjkAKlRQ/6E 6nKKo5Np4S09sRbLhC8KZ+N81WI6I1JWM5kUK4Mt/dIhTEM7G5vXV2kflvcTxQj4ltco faHv17/b6Ktda9xG2iHV6Ax4l5v21G/DbGBRg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=CxI3biukoKVWKsdrTYF3XM3NieMs23N0+8iRKOJgraDnu9QOdR4JyFNRLn5KUAH9lA AjhRo5csfI9siHieKjjRDsCsfsbmXCesW1Jtvr5Sb+XUL89sqbcCBkPkgx4CmOcMIW3I ugO91lrc1as+G4kqkNmLr+ISIz9YkSKfpK9sA= Received: by 10.223.5.14 with SMTP id 14mr7977669fat.83.1265210464949; Wed, 03 Feb 2010 07:21:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.0.10.4? (54.81.54.77.rev.vodafone.pt [77.54.81.54]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 14sm3230212fxm.11.2010.02.03.07.21.03 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 03 Feb 2010 07:21:03 -0800 (PST) Sender: Rui Paulo Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Rui Paulo In-Reply-To: <4B698DD8.4010404@icyb.net.ua> Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 15:21:00 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <43E821DA-BBD8-4ADD-ACA6-BDDD1ECB8B8F@FreeBSD.org> References: <4B698DD8.4010404@icyb.net.ua> To: Andriy Gapon X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077) Cc: freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.org, John Baldwin 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 15:21:06 -0000 On 3 Feb 2010, at 14:53, Andriy Gapon wrote: >=20 > 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. >=20 > I would like to change the order, so that _OSC evaluation is attempted = first and > only if it fails then proceed with _PDC. >=20 > 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). >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. I added the comment and I have such system. It's a MacBook first = generation. By evaluating _OSC we were able to make _PDC visible, thus enabling = cpufreq(4). -- Rui Paulo