Li, Aubrey wrote: > On Thursday, September 13, 2007 1:56 AM, Dana.Myers at Sun.COM wrote: > > >> So I took a look at the code (it's been a long time since I wrote it, >> and I've forgotten how I implemented it). I originally feared that >> I'd implemented the CPU mapping in a way that the 'duplicate' >> Processor objects would confuse the mapping code. As you point out, >> Mark, this is not >> the case. >> You're completely correct, as far as I can tell - there's no reason to >> ignore the Alias()ed Processor objects - they're just references to >> the same object anyway. I admit I wasn't thinking of the case of >> Alias() when I implemented the mapping code, but it doesn't make a >> difference at >> all. >> No memory is leaked, nothing is broken. >> >> Thanks - >> Dana >> > > That's not true, actually processor handler mapping is broken when an > AliasObject exists. > Although it is reference to the same object, it's another new object in > the namespace. > And it's not the parent of _PDC object. So when you passed it as the > handler parameter to evaluate _PDC, > We will run into the failure. > If this is true, then it seems to me that something must be wrong with the acpica interpreter. According to the spec (as I read it anyway), you should be able to treat the alias just as you would the target. So, it we cannot evaluate the _PDC using the alias object, then again, I think something is wrong at a higher level than where we are doing the mapping in osl.c
Mark
