[CFT] Sparse Cstate Support -- Its possible, that I don't know what I'm doing.

[Sean Bruno]

On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 09:44 -0700, Sean Bruno wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 09:02 -0700, Sean Bruno wrote:
> > http://people.freebsd.org/~sbruno/acpi_cpu_cstate_sparse.txt
> 
> also, I wanted to point out that I'm returning BUS_PROBE_GENERIC here.
> 
> I want to emulate the Intel acpi_idle code that exists in linux-land and
> I *thought* that I could setup an acpi_cpu_idle module that would come
> in at a higher priority on Intel cpus, however there's some SYSINIT()
> hackery going on that I don't know how to handle gracefully.  I'm not
> sure how to proceed with a different idle module here.  thoughts?
> 
> e.g.
> 
> static void
> acpi_cpu_postattach(void *unused __unused)
> {
>     device_t *devices;
>     int err;
>     int i, n;
> 
>     err = devclass_get_devices(acpi_cpu_devclass, &devices, &n);
>     if (err != 0) {
>         printf("devclass_get_devices(acpi_cpu_devclass) failed\n");
>         return;
>     }
>     for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
>         bus_generic_probe(devices[i]);
>     for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
>         bus_generic_attach(devices[i]);
>     free(devices, M_TEMP);
> }
> 
> SYSINIT(acpi_cpu, SI_SUB_CONFIGURE, SI_ORDER_MIDDLE,
>     acpi_cpu_postattach, NULL);
> 
> 


Ohhhhhh ... right.  This entire idea is stupid and fully demonstrates my
lack of understanding.  bus_probe/attach can't be used, there's no BUS
here.  So, SYSINIT() to the rescue.  Ok, that changes things around a
lot for me.  This BUS_PROBE_GENERIC idea is a dud.

/me goes back to reading first and typing second

Sean