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.
To take a step back for a second. What exactly is the issue here? That there is a message indicating that the _PSS was not found or that the message was printed to the console? Printing the message to the console was a mistake that is going to be fixed (the message will no longer be directed to the console, but will continue be logged to the system log). If checking the revision as you are proposing is a general fix that we can use for any BIOS, then sure it wouldn't hurt to check it. But I believe that we'll still want a message logged to the system log. >>> Another thing is ACPICA, I didn't dig into too much, but found the >>> version in the solaris is some different from the one on intel >>> website. How often does it sync-up with Intel ACPI CA releases? >> I do sync-up integrations of the ACPI CA source into Solaris >> whenever there's a critical-mass of new features, bug fixes >> or a high-severity bug-fix. I do integrate every source drop >> into an experimental workspace and sanity-test it in-between. >> Historically, this used to mean integrating a new drop >> into Solaris Nevada about 2-3 times a year, though it's been >> a year since the last such integration. There are some >> outstanding issues with the latest source drop I received >> from Bob Moore before he went on sabbatical, so I have not >> integrated the latest Intel sources yet. >> >> 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 for your explaination. > > Best Regards, > -Aubrey > Intel OpenSolaris Team. > _______________________________________________ > tesla-dev mailing list > tesla-dev at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/tesla-dev
