On 2013-7-2 21:10, Graeme Gregory wrote:
Hi Hanjun,
You are correct I mis-merged this patch into the tree. If you already have a patch I will take it or I can work on one this afternoon!
No, I haven't got a patch for this. if you don't have time for this, I will send one tomorrow.
Thanks
Graeme
On 02/07/13 13:53, Hanjun Guo wrote:
On 2013-6-25 22:38, Graeme Gregory wrote:
From: Graeme Gregory graeme.gregory@linaro.org
This is the proto ASL code for CPU topology support, based on the CPU topology of one phsical CPU and two cpu cores.
According to ACPI 5.0, _MAT should return GIC type of MADT entry, but I not sure about the parking_version, performance_interrupt, parked_address and base_address value of the _MAT method return buffer, if anyone give me some hints, that would be helpful.
Comments are welcomed!
Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo hanjun.guo@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Graeme Gregory graeme.gregory@linaro.org
arch/arm/boot/asl/exynos5250-arndale.acpi/dsdt.asl | 102 ++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 102 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/asl/exynos5250-arndale.acpi/dsdt.asl b/arch/arm/boot/asl/exynos5250-arndale.acpi/dsdt.asl index 67b1b42..c67aeec 100644 --- a/arch/arm/boot/asl/exynos5250-arndale.acpi/dsdt.asl +++ b/arch/arm/boot/asl/exynos5250-arndale.acpi/dsdt.asl @@ -52,4 +52,106 @@ DefinitionBlock ( } } }
Hi Graeme,
Scope (_PR) should be deleted, because Each processor in the system must be declared in the ACPI namespace in either the _SB or _PR scope but not both,
Since we declared ACPI0007 processor device, processors in _PR are not needed.
- Device (SCK0)
Device (SCK0) should be in the Scope (_SB), right?
Sorry for the late review and reply, should I make a patch for this?
Thanks Hanjun