> > Cool.  On some machine, thermal management requires Embedded Controller I/O.
> > Anybody working on this?
> Yeah.  I just discovered that I need this. 
> I haven't look at how operation regions are handled, so I'm not sure how 
> hard it's going to be to implement the hooks necessary for this.

Some VAIOs, ThinkPads require this too, luckily my PORTEGE doesn't. 
I can test the thermal management code earlier :-)

> There is another major problem here too.
> Some complete idiot in the ACPI team decided that the "right" way to 
> implement hysteresis for the temperature settings was to have the system 
> send a Notify(zone, 0x80) to the thermal zone and then have it re-parse 
> it's AML to discover new settings.  This means that you need to keep a 
> pointer to the *original* location of the AML for at least some methods 
> inside a thermal zone, if not the entire zone itself.
> My laptop does this too.  8(

PowerResource code keeps pointers to the PowerResource objects, then
finds a pointer to methods of the object dynamically.  Can we do it in
similar way for thermal management?

> I haven't looked at the ACPICA code yet, but it wouldn't surprise me if 
> all the embedded controller stuff is already supported there.  How bad do 
> you think it's going to be to make it work?  You've already looked at the 
> modifications that the Linux people have made - were they just bug fixes, 
> or are there serious problems with the code?

I didn't read closer, but I couldn't find any embedded controller
stuff in both linux-2.4.0-test8 and acpica-unix-20000901 except for
definitions in header files.
Subsystem/Include/acinterp.h:AcpiAmlEmbeddedControllerSpaceHandler in acpica,
drivers/acpi/include/interp.h:acpi_aml_embedded_controller_space_handler in linux.

I guess this function will be implemented in interpreter/amregion.c in future.

Last time I compared only few files and found many differences between
them not only for naming.  I think these two used the same code
originally, but enhanced separately.  Now that it's difficult to
compare them...

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to