On Monday 27 October 2008 01:42:37 am Zhao Yakui wrote:
> Of course please add some comments that the ACPI ID is always
> obtained from the processor block if the processor object is declared by
> processor.
The code's pretty straightforward already, but maybe comments like
this would address your concern:
if (!strcmp(acpi_device_hid(device), ACPI_PROCESSOR_HID)) {
+ /*
+ * Declared with "Device" statement; match _UID.
+ * Note that we don't handle string _UID yet.
+ */
acpi_evaluate_integer(pr->handle, METHOD_NAME__UID, NULL, &value);
pr->acpi_id = value;
} else {
+ /* Declared with "Processor" statement; match ProcessorID */
acpi_evaluate_object(pr->handle, NULL, NULL, &buffer);
pr->acpi_id = object.processor.proc_id;
}
> If the [_UID] is a string, it should be matched with the
> ACPI processor UID string field of SAPIC table to get the processor ID.
> Now this case is not handled by your patch. Of course maybe there
> doesn't exist such a system. So we can ask the user to send the ACPIdump
> and then add the corresponding support when a string is returned by the
> _UID object. It will be great if we can add the support about this.
That would be nice, but since we don't have a machine to test it with,
Myron would be adding untested code to the kernel, and I don't think
there's much value in that.
Bjorn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
