From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Williamson Subject: RE: lost thermal zones on 20040715 nc6000 Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 10:55:29 -0600 Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Message-ID: <1092243329.5907.10.camel@tdi> References: <37F890616C995246BE76B3E6B2DBE05501A8B206@orsmsx403.amr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <37F890616C995246BE76B3E6B2DBE05501A8B206-sBd4vmA9Se5Qxe9IK+vIArfspsVTdybXVpNB7YpNyf8@public.gmane.org> Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: "Moore, Robert" Cc: acpi-devel List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2004-08-11 at 09:42 -0700, Moore, Robert wrote: > > Alex, > > This is an interesting problem, and I do not think it is a problem with > the AML interpreter. The machine's AML code seems to be either ignoring > an error case or accidentally generating an improper value used during a > package comparison (Match). > > 1) For TZ1._TMP, C201 is called with an arg of 0. For TZ2._TMP, C201 is > called with an arg of 1. For TZ3._TMP, C201 is called with an arg of 2. > > 2) When C201 is called with an arg < 2, a different code path is > followed. This code path invokes another method, C08F, which is > returning a value of 0x1C00 (in what appears to be the "normal" code > path) > > 3) This return value (in Local1) in turn gets compared to elements of > the package C1EE as follows: > > Store (Match (DerefOf (Index (DerefOf (Index (C1EE, C200 (Arg0))), > 0x01)), MGT, Local1, MTR, 0x00, 0x00), Local0) > > 4) None of the elements of C1EE are greater than 0x1C00, so the Match() > operator returns 0xFFFFFFFF (indicating failure). This is stored in > Local0. > > 5) Local0 is then passed to C202 as follows: > > C202 (Local0, Arg0) > > 6) In C202, the zeroth argument is used as an index into package C1EE. > > 7) Since this argument is 0xFFFFFFFF, the Index() operation fails. > > It's hard to guess what the original code is attempting, but I do not > see any errors in the interpretation of the code. > > Did this actually work at some time in the past? > Strange. Yes, I'm currently running 2.6.8-rc4 on it w/ ACPI 20040326 and all 3 thermal zone seem to work just fine: $ acpi -Vf Battery 1: charged, 100% Battery 2: discharging, 15%, 00:31:33 remaining Thermal 1: ok, 111.2 degrees F Thermal 2: ok, 134.6 degrees F Thermal 3: ok, 91.4 degrees F AC Adapter 1: off-line $ cat /proc/acpi/thermal_zone/TZ1/polling_frequency $ cat /proc/acpi/thermal_zone/TZ1/cooling_mode cooling mode: passive $ cat /proc/acpi/thermal_zone/TZ1/trip_points critical (S5): 103 C passive: 100 C: tc1=1 tc2=2 tsp=100 devices=0xf7ffe500 active[0]: 80 C: devices=0xf7f38920 active[1]: 65 C: devices=0xf7f39880 active[2]: 55 C: devices=0xf7f39800 active[3]: 45 C: devices=0xf7f39780 $ cat /proc/acpi/thermal_zone/TZ1/temperature temperature: 44 C $ cat /proc/acpi/thermal_zone/TZ1/state state: ok I don't see any ACPI error messages with the older version of the CA. Thanks, Alex -- Alex Williamson HP Linux & Open Source Lab ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by Shop4tech.com-Lowest price on Blank Media 100pk Sonic DVD-R 4x for only $29 -100pk Sonic DVD+R for only $33 Save 50% off Retail on Ink & Toner - Free Shipping and Free Gift. http://www.shop4tech.com/z/Inkjet_Cartridges/9_108_r285