Re: ASL fixing questions

Bruno Ducrot
2004-02-12T20:43:35Z

On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 11:33:00AM -0500, Martijn Pieters wrote:
> >>Do you have a SSDT table ? If so, this object may be in that SSDT
> >>instead.
>
> >SSDT decompilation fails with:
> >
> > dswload-0264: *** Error: Looking up [\_PR_.CPU0] in namespace,
> >AE_NOT_FOUND
> > psparse-1283: *** Error: [NULL NAME], AE_NOT_FOUND
> >Could not parse ACPI tables, AE_NOT_FOUND
> >
> >How can I decompile the SSDT table with the DSDT namespace available? Ue
> >an Include in the DSDT AML? Your suspicion could be right, hexedit of
> >the SSDT code does show a _PPC declaration.
>
> Okay, I decompiled the SSDT table by hand (small table anyway), find it
> attached (really!). It doates indeed define the _PPC field and two other
> names, which make little sense to me.
>
> Which leads to my next question: I thought leading underscore names were
> reserved by the ACPI spec. ACPI 1.0 doesn't define the names, and ACPI
> 2.0 defines them differently. Can this lead to problems with the Linux
> ACPI implementation making assumptions about ACPI 1.0 code with 2.0
> extensions?

Since you already commented this, I will not comment any further, it's
just about the SSDT (btw, I don't have trouble do disassemble a SSDT
with iasl).

> DefinitionBlock ("SSDT.aml", "SSDT", 1, "PTLTD ", "POWERNOW", 100925440)
> {
> Scope (\_PR.CPU0)
> {
> Name (_PCT, Package (0x02)
> {
> Buffer (0x11)
> {
> 0x82, 0x0C, 0x00, 0x7F, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
> 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x79, 0x00
> },
> Buffer (0x11)
> {
> 0x82, 0x0C, 0x00, 0x7F, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00,
> 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x79, 0x00
> }
> })
> Name (_PSS, Package (0x03) // 102 (206)
> {
> Package (0x06)
> {
> 0x08070000,
> 0xB36A0000,
> 0x7D000000,
> 0x09000000,
> 0x8A2920E0,
> 0x8A010000
^^^^^^^^^^
I think that all of those
values are broken, because
they are stored in a little bit
order.
It should be in fact, at least for the that
first package:

0x0708,
0x6AB3,
0x007D,
0x0090,
0xE020298A,
0x018A

Also, I think the 0xE020298A is false. It should be
0x0E20298A I guess.

> },
> Package (0x06)
> {
> 0x40060000,
> 0xA8610000,
> 0x7D000000,
> 0x09000000,
> 0xBB2A20E0,
> 0xBBC20000
> },
> Package (0x06)
> {
> 0x20030000,
> 0x7F3C0000,
> 0x7D000000,
> 0x09000000,
> 0x002E20E0,
> 0x00060000
> }
> })
> Name (_PPC, 0x00)
> }
> }

--
Bruno Ducrot

-- Which is worse: ignorance or apathy?
-- Don't know. Don't care.

-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now.
Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with
a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now!