On 04/19/2012 04:08 PM, Vasilis Liaskovitis wrote:
> Extend the DSDT to include methods for handling memory hot-add and hot-remove
> notifications and memory device status requests. These functions are called
> from the memory device SSDT methods.
>
> Eject has only been tested with level gpe event, but will be changed to edge gpe
> event soon, according to recent master patch for other ACPI hotplug events.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vasilis Liaskovitis<vasilis.liaskovitis(a)profitbricks.com>
> ---
> src/acpi-dsdt.dsl | 68 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/acpi-dsdt.dsl b/src/acpi-dsdt.dsl
> index 4bdc268..184daf0 100644
> --- a/src/acpi-dsdt.dsl
> +++ b/src/acpi-dsdt.dsl
> @@ -709,9 +709,72 @@ DefinitionBlock (
> }
> Return(One)
> }
> - }
>
> + /* Objects filled in by run-time generated SSDT */
> + External(MTFY, MethodObj)
> + External(MEON, PkgObj)
> +
> + Method (CMST, 1, NotSerialized) {
> + // _STA method - return ON status of memdevice
> + // Local0 = MEON flag for this cpu
> + Store(DerefOf(Index(MEON, Arg0)), Local0)
> + If (Local0) { Return(0xF) } Else { Return(0x0) }
> + }
> + /* Memory eject notify method */
> + OperationRegion(MEMJ, SystemIO, 0xaf40, 32)
> + Field (MEMJ, ByteAcc, NoLock, Preserve)
> + {
> + MPE, 256
> + }
> +
> + Method (MPEJ, 2, NotSerialized) {
> + // _EJ0 method - eject callback
> + Store(ShiftLeft(1,Arg0), MPE)
> + Sleep(200)
> + }
MPE is write only and only one memslot is ejected at a time. Why 256 bit-field is here then?
Could we use just 1 byte and write a slot number into it and save some io address space this way?
> +
> + /* Memory hotplug notify method */
> + OperationRegion(MEST, SystemIO, 0xaf20, 32)
It's more a suggestion: move it a bit farther to allow maybe 1024 cpus in the future.
That will prevent compatibility a headache, if we decide to expand support to more then
256 cpus.
Or event better to make this address configurable in run-time and build this var along
with SSDT (converting along the way all other hard-coded io ports to the same generic
run-time interface). This wish is out of scope of this patch-set, but what
do you think about the idea?
> + Field (MEST, ByteAcc, NoLock, Preserve)
> + {
> + MES, 256
> + }
> +
> + Method(MESC, 0) {
> + // Local5 = active memdevice bitmap
> + Store (MES, Local5)
> + // Local2 = last read byte from bitmap
> + Store (Zero, Local2)
> + // Local0 = memory device iterator
> + Store (Zero, Local0)
> + While (LLess(Local0, SizeOf(MEON))) {
> + // Local1 = MEON flag for this memory device
> + Store(DerefOf(Index(MEON, Local0)), Local1)
> + If (And(Local0, 0x07)) {
> + // Shift down previously read bitmap byte
> + ShiftRight(Local2, 1, Local2)
> + } Else {
> + // Read next byte from memdevice bitmap
> + Store(DerefOf(Index(Local5, ShiftRight(Local0, 3))), Local2)
> + }
> + // Local3 = active state for this memory device
> + Store(And(Local2, 1), Local3)
>
> + If (LNotEqual(Local1, Local3)) {
> + // State change - update MEON with new state
> + Store(Local3, Index(MEON, Local0))
> + // Do MEM notify
> + If (LEqual(Local3, 1)) {
> + MTFY(Local0, 1)
> + } Else {
> + MTFY(Local0, 3)
> + }
> + }
> + Increment(Local0)
> + }
> + Return(One)
> + }
> + }
> /****************************************************************
> * General purpose events
> ****************************************************************/
> @@ -732,7 +795,8 @@ DefinitionBlock (
> Return(\_SB.PRSC())
> }
> Method(_L03) {
> - Return(0x01)
> + // Memory hotplug event
> + Return(\_SB.MESC())
> }
> Method(_L04) {
> Return(0x01)
--
-----
Igor