Li, Aubrey wrote: > On Friday, August 10, 2007 4:42 AM, Dana.Myers at Sun.COM wrote: > >> Aubrey wrote: >> >>> For P-state driver, I have one suggestion. There are still some old >>> machines which support early ACPI specs but not support P-state. >>> We should not ignore this kind of machine. So IMHO P-state driver >>> should check the version of ACPI and doesn't make unnecessary >>> warning. >> It's a bit difficult to tell what version of ACPI a BIOS has been >> "written for"; there's no version stamp on a BIOS saying "compliant >> with ACPI version x.xx". Certainly we shouldn't generate warnings >> when a feature simply isn't supported, though. > > Well, there is a structure member "Revision" in the RSDP structure. > The ACPI version 1.0 revision number of this table is zero. Later the > value for this field is 2. > That's enough for PSS object checking. I'll come up with a patch against > it if it's acceptable. That field is the revision of the RSDP structure itself, not of the ACPI tables. It's been '2' in both the ACPI 2.x and 3.x specs and '0' in the 1.x spec, so I suppose we could infer from it that a BIOS written in the pre-2.0 era is present, but I'm afraid I don't understand the exact error case we're discussing in the first place. What is the problem we're trying to solve? I'd prefer to solve the root-cause of the problem rather use the RSDP structure version in a way not intended by the spec.
> >> >> What version did you find on the Intel website? We're >> currently at 20060721 in Solaris Nevada. >> >> Dana > > The current version is 20061109, here is the changelog. > http://www.intel.com/technology/iapc/acpi/downloads/changes.txt > I'm new to solaris, just want to know when and how this package is > updated into solaris. Thanks; we currently have a later source drop in-house, but there's an issue in 20070508 and later which results in a dead-lock when delivering GPE events. Do you know when Bob Moore will be back from sabbatical? Thanks - Dana
