Li, Aubrey wrote:
> Bill.Holler wrote:
>
>
>> Webrev updated. I am not sure if we can putback this change
>> independent of any pending ACPI CA change?
>>
>> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~bholler/6818652/
>>
>
> Of course we can, :)
> This patch is using the right way to cache _CST and fix the panic on M9 and
> M10.
>
> ACPICA related change could be a separate patch.
>
Please, someone tell me if there are ACPI CA changes proposed. I'd
think I'd
know if there was, and there aren't any.
I *am* in the process of preparing an update of the base ACPI CA
interpreter code,
but that's not required for this patch.
Once we diagnose and repair the ACPI CA code to deal with the Toshiba
M9/M10 and
then update the interpreter in Solaris, then the M9/M10 will start
supporting deep C-states.
But that's independent.
> Thanks,
> -Aubrey
>
>
>> bash-3.2$ more webrev/*.patch
>> --- old/usr/src/uts/i86pc/os/cpupm/cpu_acpi.c Thu Mar 19 17:37:01
>> 2009 +++ new/usr/src/uts/i86pc/os/cpupm/cpu_acpi.c Thu Mar 19
>> 17:37:00 2009 @@ -695,8 +695,8 @@
>> abuf.Length = ACPI_ALLOCATE_BUFFER;
>> abuf.Pointer = NULL;
>>
>> - if (ACPI_FAILURE(AcpiEvaluateObject(handle->cs_handle, "_CST",
>> - NULL, &abuf))) {
>> + if
>> (ACPI_FAILURE(AcpiEvaluateObjectTyped(handle->cs_handle, "_CST",
>> + NULL, &abuf, ACPI_TYPE_PACKAGE))) {
>> cmn_err(CE_NOTE, "!cpu_acpi: _CST evaluate failure");
>> return (-1); }
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bill
>> _______________________________________________
>> tesla-dev mailing list
>> tesla-dev at opensolaris.org
>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/tesla-dev
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tesla-dev mailing list
> tesla-dev at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/tesla-dev
>
