On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Langsdorf, Mark <mark.langsdorf@amd.com> wrote:On the first look the ACPI seems correct. The first two P00x objects have this PSD: Package (0x05) { 0x05, 0x00, 0x00000000, 0x000000FD, 0x00000002 } The other two have 0x00000001 at the third position. But as I don't really have a clue about ACPI, I'm attaching the complete SSDT so you can take look. Just ask, if you need the other tables too. Torsten
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 002/196] Chinese: rephrase English introduction in HOWTO |
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Andrew Morton | Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 -- sys_fallocate |
| Greg KH | Re: [AppArmor 39/45] AppArmor: Profile loading and manipulation, pathname matching |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 03/37] dccp: List management for new feature negotiation |
| Arjan van de Ven | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
