Hi-
My laptop has SPLC implemented like this:
Name (SPLX, Package (0x04)
{
Zero,
Package (0x03)
{
0x80000000,
0x80000000,
0x80000000
},
Package (0x03)
{
0x80000000,
0x80000000,
0x80000000
},
Package (0x03)
{
0x80000000,
0x80000000,
0x80000000
}
})
Method (SPLC, 0, Serialized)
{
Index (DerefOf (Index (SPLX, One)), Zero) = DOM1 /* \DOM1 */
Index (DerefOf (Index (SPLX, One)), One) = LIM1 /* \LIM1 */
Index (DerefOf (Index (SPLX, One)), 0x02) = TIM1 /* \TIM1 */
Index (DerefOf (Index (SPLX, 0x02)), Zero) = DOM2 /* \DOM2 */
Index (DerefOf (Index (SPLX, 0x02)), One) = LIM2 /* \LIM2 */
Index (DerefOf (Index (SPLX, 0x02)), 0x02) = TIM2 /* \TIM2 */
Index (DerefOf (Index (SPLX, 0x03)), Zero) = DOM3 /* \DOM3 */
Index (DerefOf (Index (SPLX, 0x03)), One) = LIM3 /* \LIM3 */
Index (DerefOf (Index (SPLX, 0x03)), 0x02) = TIM3 /* \TIM3 */
Return (SPLX) /* \_SB_.PCI0.RP14.PXSX.SPLX */
}
splx_get_power_limit rejects this because it has more than one entry.
I don't see a spec for SPLC, but I'd guess that splx_get_power_limit
should iterate all the entries to find one that indicates wifi.
Also, should this be in common code instead of just in iwleifi?
--Andy
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 10:35 PM, Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi-
>
> My laptop has SPLC implemented like this:
>
> Name (SPLX, Package (0x04)
> {
> Zero,
> Package (0x03)
> {
> 0x80000000,
> 0x80000000,
> 0x80000000
> },
>
> Package (0x03)
> {
> 0x80000000,
> 0x80000000,
> 0x80000000
> },
>
> Package (0x03)
> {
> 0x80000000,
> 0x80000000,
> 0x80000000
> }
> })
> Method (SPLC, 0, Serialized)
> {
> Index (DerefOf (Index (SPLX, One)), Zero) = DOM1 /* \DOM1 */
> Index (DerefOf (Index (SPLX, One)), One) = LIM1 /* \LIM1 */
> Index (DerefOf (Index (SPLX, One)), 0x02) = TIM1 /* \TIM1 */
> Index (DerefOf (Index (SPLX, 0x02)), Zero) = DOM2 /* \DOM2 */
> Index (DerefOf (Index (SPLX, 0x02)), One) = LIM2 /* \LIM2 */
> Index (DerefOf (Index (SPLX, 0x02)), 0x02) = TIM2 /* \TIM2 */
> Index (DerefOf (Index (SPLX, 0x03)), Zero) = DOM3 /* \DOM3 */
> Index (DerefOf (Index (SPLX, 0x03)), One) = LIM3 /* \LIM3 */
> Index (DerefOf (Index (SPLX, 0x03)), 0x02) = TIM3 /* \TIM3 */
> Return (SPLX) /* \_SB_.PCI0.RP14.PXSX.SPLX */
> }
>
> splx_get_power_limit rejects this because it has more than one entry.
> I don't see a spec for SPLC, but I'd guess that splx_get_power_limit
> should iterate all the entries to find one that indicates wifi.
>
> Also, should this be in common code instead of just in iwleifi?
>
TBH, I don't know much about that. I'll ask internally and get back to
you. I am badly overloaded, so feel free to ping me in a few days if
you haven't heard from me.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Emmanuel Grumbach <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 10:35 PM, Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hi-
>>
>> My laptop has SPLC implemented like this:
>>
>> Name (SPLX, Package (0x04)
>> {
>> Zero,
>> Package (0x03)
>> {
>> 0x80000000,
>> 0x80000000,
>> 0x80000000
>> },
>>
>> Package (0x03)
>> {
>> 0x80000000,
>> 0x80000000,
>> 0x80000000
>> },
>>
>> Package (0x03)
>> {
>> 0x80000000,
>> 0x80000000,
>> 0x80000000
>> }
>> })
>> Method (SPLC, 0, Serialized)
>> {
>> Index (DerefOf (Index (SPLX, One)), Zero) = DOM1 /* \DOM1 */
>> Index (DerefOf (Index (SPLX, One)), One) = LIM1 /* \LIM1 */
>> Index (DerefOf (Index (SPLX, One)), 0x02) = TIM1 /* \TIM1 */
>> Index (DerefOf (Index (SPLX, 0x02)), Zero) = DOM2 /* \DOM2 */
>> Index (DerefOf (Index (SPLX, 0x02)), One) = LIM2 /* \LIM2 */
>> Index (DerefOf (Index (SPLX, 0x02)), 0x02) = TIM2 /* \TIM2 */
>> Index (DerefOf (Index (SPLX, 0x03)), Zero) = DOM3 /* \DOM3 */
>> Index (DerefOf (Index (SPLX, 0x03)), One) = LIM3 /* \LIM3 */
>> Index (DerefOf (Index (SPLX, 0x03)), 0x02) = TIM3 /* \TIM3 */
>> Return (SPLX) /* \_SB_.PCI0.RP14.PXSX.SPLX */
>> }
>>
>> splx_get_power_limit rejects this because it has more than one entry.
>> I don't see a spec for SPLC, but I'd guess that splx_get_power_limit
>> should iterate all the entries to find one that indicates wifi.
>>
>> Also, should this be in common code instead of just in iwleifi?
>>
>
> TBH, I don't know much about that. I'll ask internally and get back to
> you. I am badly overloaded, so feel free to ping me in a few days if
> you haven't heard from me.
Happy new year! Consider yourself pinged :)
--Andy