Zhao Yakui wrote:
On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 11:51 +0800, Lin Ming wrote:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11884
Method(\_SB._INI)
{
//initialize package CUZO
}
Method(\_SB_.PCI0.LPCB.EC0_._REG)
{
//access package CUZO
}
For this machine, \_SB._INI must be run before \_SB_.PCI0.LPCB.EC0_._REG
But currently early EC _REG method is run before _INI as below acpi_bus_init shows.
void __init acpi_bus_init(void)
.....
status = acpi_ec_ecdt_probe();
/* Ignore result. Not having an ECDT is not fatal. */
status = acpi_initialize_objects(ACPI_FULL_INITIALIZATION);
.....
}
acpi_ec_ecdt_probe will install ec handler although no ECDT found in this machine.
Alexey,
How about that if there's no ECDT found, we do not install ec handler before acpi_initialize_objects?
I do some test with the help of KVM. In my test the ECDT table is
defined. And there also exists the EC device in DSDT table.Of course
there exists the _INI/_REG object under the scope of EC device. Under
the scope of \_SB.PCI0 there exists the _INI/_REG object.
From the test result it seems that all the _INI objects are evaluated
before _REG object even when there exists the ECDT table.
Hi, Alexey
Can the Lin Ming's proposal be considered based on the above test?
Hi Yakui,
His proposal needs to be considered even without your test (but the test itself is quite helpful),
just because HP does not violate the ACPI spec, but ASUS notebooks without ECDT do violate it
(and fake ECDT workaround is there for them).
Thanks,
Alex.
--
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
