[ping] on 11/09/2012 09:32 Andriy Gapon said the following: > > I think that we always expect to have a one-to-one correspondence between > acpi_cpu devices and actual (APIC) CPUs. acpi_pcpu_get_id() seems to even > assert that, if I am reading the code correctly. > > The following patch adds the assert to acpi_cpu_idle as well and also removes > what I believe to be an obsolete comment about HTT CPUs. > > acpi_cpu: expect every cpu to have a corresponding acpi_cpu object > > ... via Processor object in ASL namespace. > > diff --git a/sys/dev/acpica/acpi_cpu.c b/sys/dev/acpica/acpi_cpu.c > index 15201f9..203ed02 100644 > --- a/sys/dev/acpica/acpi_cpu.c > +++ b/sys/dev/acpica/acpi_cpu.c > @@ -925,23 +925,15 @@ acpi_cpu_idle() > uint32_t start_time, end_time; > int bm_active, cx_next_idx, i; > > + sc = cpu_softc[PCPU_GET(cpuid)]; > + KASSERT(sc != NULL, ("acpi_cpu_idle: CPU without ACPI CPU")); > + > /* If disabled, return immediately. */ > if (cpu_disable_idle) { > ACPI_ENABLE_IRQS(); > return; > } > > - /* > - * Look up our CPU id to get our softc. If it's NULL, we'll use C1 > - * since there is no ACPI processor object for this CPU. This occurs > - * for logical CPUs in the HTT case. > - */ > - sc = cpu_softc[PCPU_GET(cpuid)]; > - if (sc == NULL) { > - acpi_cpu_c1(); > - return; > - } > - > /* Find the lowest state that has small enough latency. */ > cx_next_idx = 0; > if (cpu_disable_deep_sleep) >
-- Andriy Gapon _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"