https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236513
John Baldwin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|b...@freebsd.org|j...@freebsd.org
Status
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236513
John Baldwin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #203218|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236513
--- Comment #39 from John Baldwin ---
Yes, having the resources be per-CPU in devinfo is the expected effect of this
patch. I think though that I want to modify this a bit more so that we just
don't reserve resources for CPU devices rather
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236513
--- Comment #38 from stockhau...@collogia.de ---
Sorry not quite yet... The only call to acpi_set_resource() during _CST port
setup has the following input:
class of dev: "acpi"
class of child: "cpu"
A slight modification gives:
if (d
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236513
--- Comment #37 from John Baldwin ---
Created attachment 203218
--> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=203218&action=edit
shareable_acpi_set_resource.patch
This is an untested hack that uses RF_SHAREABLE when reserving r
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236513
--- Comment #36 from John Baldwin ---
It may be that we need to fix the RF_SHAREABLE to propagate up when the
resource is first allocated by resource_list_reserve, etc. That might fix this
without requiring the BIOS to be patched. I haven
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236513
--- Comment #35 from stockhau...@collogia.de ---
Phew, I see you found the culprit. Although I do not know every single function
I saw a lot of the names during my code analysis.
Regarding HP T620 settings: cpucontrol -m 0xC0010073 /dev/cpu
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236513
--- Comment #34 from Andriy Gapon ---
(In reply to stockhausen from comment #32)
1. Ah, you are right, I forgot that modern processors intercept C-state I/O
accesses at a core level.
Just to clarify, I assume that on your T620 cpucontrol -m
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236513
--- Comment #33 from stockhau...@collogia.de ---
Btw. I found a sample with C2 state port 0x814
https://mail-index.netbsd.org/current-users/2010/07/21/msg013890.html
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236513
--- Comment #32 from stockhau...@collogia.de ---
Thanks for the helpful discussion. I think I'm getting a better knowledge about
it all. Reading across the AMD documents I think everything works as expected.
Or at least quite close.
Compari
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236513
Andriy Gapon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||j...@freebsd.org
--- Comment #31 fr
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236513
--- Comment #30 from Andriy Gapon ---
(In reply to stockhausen from comment #26)
So, I am mostly interested in point 4 of the buggy case. The rest was already
clear.
Specifically, why something that works for cpu0 does not work for the res
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236513
--- Comment #29 from stockhau...@collogia.de ---
Memo for myself
T730: AMD BIOS Developer Guide (Family=0x15 Model=0x30)
https://www.amd.com/system/files/TechDocs/49125_15h_Models_30h-3Fh_BKDG.pdf
T620: AMD BIOS Developer Guide (Family=0x
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236513
--- Comment #28 from stockhau...@collogia.de ---
Created attachment 203192
--> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=203192&action=edit
Modified (working) ACPIDUMP of HP T620 Plus
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236513
--- Comment #27 from stockhau...@collogia.de ---
Created attachment 203191
--> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=203191&action=edit
Original (buggy) ACPIDUMP of HP T620 Plus
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You a
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236513
--- Comment #26 from stockhau...@collogia.de ---
(In reply to Andriy Gapon from comment #25)
Sorry for the confusion. I'm totally new to the topic and try to do my best to
explain my observations more clear.
The thin clients I'm talking ab
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236513
--- Comment #25 from Andriy Gapon ---
(In reply to stockhausen from comment #24)
I still don't understand the problem.
How does that 0x40b 1-byte port interfere with 0x414 port?
Or is it the other way around? Are you abusing the system res
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236513
stockhau...@collogia.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|AMD Jaguar: Only CPU core 0 |HP Thin clients T620/T730
18 matches
Mail list logo
