Re: [ACPI] ASL fixing questions

[Martijn P. <mj...@zo...>]

Martijn Pieters wrote:
> Okay, I decompiled the SSDT table by hand (small table anyway), find it 
> attached (really!). It doates indeed define the _PPC field and two other 
> names, which make little sense to me.
> 
> Which leads to my next question: I thought leading underscore names were 
> reserved by the ACPI spec. ACPI 1.0 doesn't define the names, and ACPI 
> 2.0 defines them differently. Can this lead to problems with the Linux 
> ACPI implementation making assumptions about ACPI 1.0 code with 2.0 
> extensions?

Strike that; I misremembered the ACPI 2.0 spec; these fields are indeed 
ACPI 2.0 Processor fields.

Martijn