Thread (1 message) 1 message, 1 author, 2003-06-23

RE: [ACPI] _PDC method in DSDT

From: David Moore <hidden>
Date: 2003-06-23 07:53:27

On Mon, 2003-06-23 at 00:11, Grover, Andrew wrote:
quoted
From: David Moore [mailto:dcm-HInyCGIudOg@public.gmane.org] 
Given this document, I think I have enough information now to patch
processor.c to support Enhanced Speedstep on Pentium M for 
those BIOSes
that have a correctly written _PDC method in the DSDT.  Would the
maintainers of the ACPI driver be willing to accept such a patch?
I don't think so, at least not right now.

However, since the recently added non-vendor-supported Pentium M cpufreq
driver uses hardcoded tables and cpuid instead of relying on ACPI for
this information anyways, adding _PDC support to processor.c would not
affect its behavior. If that driver were changed to use ACPI for
determining platform capabilities, like Windows and our released binary
driver do, then yes, adding _PDC support would be important.
My intention was not for processor.c and cpufreq to cooperate, but
rather for processor.c to be able to control Enhanced Speedstep solely
with P-states -- no cpufreq necessary.  Cpufreq is certainly useful for
those systems not running the ACPI driver, but in the long run, ACPI and
processor.c seem to be the right way to get maximum compatibility with
many platforms.

If my understanding is correct, once _PDC is called, the only change
necessary to drive Enhanced Speedstep with P-states is simply to
interpret the registers returned by _PCT and if they are of type
FixedHardware, to use wrmsr() instead of outb().  I'm slightly
oversimplifying, but such an approach works on my system.

I only have two concerns:
1) If the processor is an AMD or a Transmeta, it looks like _PCT may
also return FixedHardware registers for their respective power
management systems.  Do we need to read cpuid to treat these cases
differently in processor.c, or will the blind wrmsr() do the trick?
2) If this capability is open-source, do you personally have a conflict
of interest between protecting the binary-only module vs. accepting the
patch?

Thanks for your input,

David
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help