When calling _PDC, we really only need the handle to the processor
to call the method; we don't look at any other parts of the
struct acpi_processor * given to us.

In the early path, when we walk the namespace, we are given the
handle directly, so just pass it through to acpi_processor_set_pdc()
without stuffing it into a wasteful struct acpi_processor allocated
on the stack each time

This saves 2834 bytes of stack.

Update the interface accordingly.

Signed-off-by: Alex Chiang <achiang@hp.com>
Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>

We discovered that at least one machine (HP Envy), methods in the DSDT
attempt to call external methods defined in a dynamically loaded SSDT.

Unfortunately, the DSDT methods we are trying to call are part of the
EC initialization, which happens very early, and the the dynamic SSDT
is only loaded when a processor _PDC method runs much later.

This results in namespace lookup errors for the (as of yet) undefined
methods.

Since Windows doesn't have any issues with this machine, we take it
as a hint that they must be evaluating _PDC much earlier than we are.

Thus, the proper thing for Linux to do should be to match the Windows
implementation more closely.

Provide a mechanism to call _PDC before we enable the EC. Doing so loads
the dynamic tables, and allows the EC to be enabled correctly.

The ACPI processor driver will still evaluate _PDC in its .add() method
to cover the hotplug case.

Resolves: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14824

Cc: ming.m.lin@intel.com
Signed-off-by: Alex Chiang <achiang@hp.com>
Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>

Due to the merge of processor_start() (declared with __cpuinit) into
processor_add(), a section mismatch warning appears:

WARNING: drivers/built-in.o(.text+0x4d59d): Section mismatch in reference
from the function acpi_processor_add() to the function
.cpuinit.text:acpi_processor_power_init()
...

This patch fixes the warning by declaring processor_add() as __cpuinit
and also declares acpi_processor_add_fs() as __cpuinit as it is only
used in acpi_processor_add().

Signed-off-by: Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>

Conflicts:
	include/acpi/processor.h

Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>

This message shows up for each cpu.  Print as debug messages.

[   12.893967] processor ACPI0007:00: registered as cooling_device0
[   12.907838] processor ACPI0007:01: registered as cooling_device1

Signed-off-by: Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>

The existing interface only has a pre-order callback. This change
adds an additional parameter for a post-order callback which will
be more useful for bus scans. ACPICA BZ 779.

Also update the external calls to acpi_walk_namespace.

http://www.acpica.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=779

Signed-off-by: Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Bob Moore <robert.moore@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>

According to the ACPI spec(section 8.4.4.3) OSPM should convey the _PPC
evaluations status to the platform if there exists the _OST object.
The _OST contains two arguments:
	The first is the PERFORMANCE notificatin event.
	The second is the status of _PPC object.
OSPM will convey the _PPC evaluation status to the platform.
Of course when the module parameter of "ignore_ppc" is added, OSPM won't
evaluate the _PPC object. But it will call the _OST object.

At the same time the _OST object will be evaluated only when the PERFORMANCE
notification event is received.

Signed-off-by: Zhao Yakui <yakui.zhao@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>

Annote acpi_processor_add with cpuinit since it calls a cpuinit function
acpi_processor_power_init and fixes a section mismatch warning.

 We were warned by the following warning:

 LD      drivers/acpi/processor.o
WARNING: drivers/acpi/processor.o(.text+0x1829): Section mismatch in
reference from the function acpi_processor_add() to the function
.cpuinit.text:acpi_processor_power_init()
The function acpi_processor_add() references
the function __cpuinit acpi_processor_power_init().
This is often because acpi_processor_add lacks a __cpuinit
annotation or the annotation of acpi_processor_power_init is wrong.

Signed-off-by: Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>

I was recently lucky enough to get a 64-CPU system.  The processors
actually have T-states, so my kernel log ends up with 64 lines like:

    ACPI: Processor [CPU0] (supports xx throttling states)

This is pretty useless clutter because

 - this info is already available after boot from
   /proc/acpi/processor/CPUnn/throttling

 - there's also an ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT() in processor_throttling.c that
   gives the same info on boot for anyone who *really* cares.

So just delete the code that prints the throttling states in
processor_core.c.

Signed-off-by: Roland Dreier <rolandd@cisco.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>