From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bjorn Helgaas Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ACPI: Disambiguate processor declaration type Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 10:07:15 -0600 Message-ID: <200810271007.16758.bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> References: <1224702636.6784.13.camel@localhost> <1224883385.6754.116.camel@localhost> <1225093357.5189.47.camel@yakui_zhao.sh.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from g5t0009.atlanta.hp.com ([15.192.0.46]:44423 "EHLO g5t0009.atlanta.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751521AbYJ0QHU (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:07:20 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1225093357.5189.47.camel@yakui_zhao.sh.intel.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Zhao Yakui Cc: Myron Stowe , "lenb@kernel.org" , "aystarik@gmail.com" , linux-acpi , John Keller 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