On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 09:44 -0700, Sean Bruno wrote: > On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 09:02 -0700, Sean Bruno wrote: > > http://people.freebsd.org/~sbruno/acpi_cpu_cstate_sparse.txt > > also, I wanted to point out that I'm returning BUS_PROBE_GENERIC here. > > I want to emulate the Intel acpi_idle code that exists in linux-land and > I *thought* that I could setup an acpi_cpu_idle module that would come > in at a higher priority on Intel cpus, however there's some SYSINIT() > hackery going on that I don't know how to handle gracefully. I'm not > sure how to proceed with a different idle module here. thoughts? > > e.g. > > static void > acpi_cpu_postattach(void *unused __unused) > { > device_t *devices; > int err; > int i, n; > > err = devclass_get_devices(acpi_cpu_devclass, &devices, &n); > if (err != 0) { > printf("devclass_get_devices(acpi_cpu_devclass) failed\n"); > return; > } > for (i = 0; i < n; i++) > bus_generic_probe(devices[i]); > for (i = 0; i < n; i++) > bus_generic_attach(devices[i]); > free(devices, M_TEMP); > } > > SYSINIT(acpi_cpu, SI_SUB_CONFIGURE, SI_ORDER_MIDDLE, > acpi_cpu_postattach, NULL); > >
Ohhhhhh ... right. This entire idea is stupid and fully demonstrates my lack of understanding. bus_probe/attach can't be used, there's no BUS here. So, SYSINIT() to the rescue. Ok, that changes things around a lot for me. This BUS_PROBE_GENERIC idea is a dud. /me goes back to reading first and typing second Sean _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
