From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Feb  3 20:46:53 2010
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 A2103106568F
	for <freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.org>; Wed,  3 Feb 2010 20:46:53 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from nate@root.org)
Received: from mail.root.org (root.org [208.72.84.34])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7570C8FC0A
	for <freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.org>; Wed,  3 Feb 2010 20:46:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.1.226] (dsl081-053-082.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net
	[64.81.53.82]) by mail.root.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1217942D8;
	Wed,  3 Feb 2010 20:46:51 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <4B69E0BA.4080104@root.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 12:46:50 -0800
From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua>
References: <4B698DD8.4010404@icyb.net.ua>
In-Reply-To: <4B698DD8.4010404@icyb.net.ua>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.org, Rui Paulo <rpaulo@FreeBSD.org>,
	John Baldwin <jhb@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 <freebsd-acpi.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi>,
	<mailto:freebsd-acpi-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-acpi>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-acpi-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi>,
	<mailto:freebsd-acpi-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:46:53 -0000

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.
> 

This is fine with me. When I first implemented this stuff, _PDC was
barely public and I had to guess at some of the bits.

-- 
Nate