From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jun 28 21:40:59 2011
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B02BE106564A;
	Tue, 28 Jun 2011 21:40:54 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org)
From: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org>
To: Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 17:40:47 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2
References: <BANLkTim+1UwquMJ32WP8wZBGkYxPv78MLA@mail.gmail.com>
	<201106281514.36324.jkim@FreeBSD.org>
	<4E0A470F.6090503@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <4E0A470F.6090503@FreeBSD.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201106281740.49247.jkim@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org, Vitaly Magerya <vmagerya@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: (Missing) power states of an Atom N455-based netbook
X-BeenThere: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: ACPI and power management development <freebsd-acpi.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi>,
	<mailto:freebsd-acpi-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-acpi>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-acpi-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi>,
	<mailto:freebsd-acpi-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 21:40:59 -0000

On Tuesday 28 June 2011 05:26 pm, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 28/06/2011 22:14 Jung-uk Kim said the following:
> > On Tuesday 28 June 2011 07:28 am, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> >> I think that part (but not all) of the differences between
> >> FreeBSD and Linux can be explained by the fact that FreeBSD
> >> currently doesn't advertise itself as featuring
> >> ACPI_CAP_SMP_C1_NATIVE and ACPI_CAP_SMP_C3_NATIVE.  I am not
> >> sure what it would take to actually support these features.  I
> >> think that Linux does support (or at least advertise support)
> >> for these features.
> >
> > Yes, Linux supports this Intel-specific feature.  I think it
> > shouldn't be too hard for us, however.  We just have to add
> > support for Intel-specific _CST FFH (Functional Fixed Hardware)
> > in
> > sys/dev/acpica/acpi_cpu.c.  You can find more information from
> > "Intel Processor Vendor-Specific ACPI" (order number 302223-005)
> > on Intel website.  Also, arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cstate.c of Linux
> > source may help.  I believe Linux actually supports all
> > Intel-specific FFHs, BTW.
>
> Once upon a time there was a patch proposed for FreeBSD:
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.os.freebsd.current/127860/focus=6372
> Unfortunately I have never really evaluated it.

Hmm, interesting patch.  I think he is in the right direction.

Thanks for sharing,

Jung-uk Kim