On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 13:18 -0700, Andriy Gapon wrote: > > I also, disagree with the idea of "FreeBSD C-states" as that is not > the > > intention of the code. The code, from my read, is trying to > interpret > > C-states as though they are always defined sequentially and > non-sparse. > > I seem to recall that this is an ACPI requirement. I could be > mistaken, but no > time to double-check at the moment. > >
Just to check as I'm actively looking at this code I went and grabbed the December 6, 2011 ACPI spec. http://www.acpi.info/spec.htm chap 8.1 pretty clearly states that C2 and C3 are optional states. So it appears that you can have a C3 without a C2. So, I suspect that the idea that the index the cx_states array is always going to be 1 less that the ACPI Cstate value isn't by spec. Or something ... :-) Sean "I have no idea how computers work" Bruno _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
