on 20/06/2012 23:54 Sean Bruno said the following: > 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 ... :-)
I think that the chapter on _CST is more relevant here (8.4.2.1 in my copy of the spec). But anyway, there is no such requirement in the specification. I was misremembering the requirement that states should be ordered. So, would you like to produce a cleaned up version of your patch with only this change in it? -- Andriy Gapon _______________________________________________ freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-acpi-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
