buoo Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 Thank you SSDT-5.dsl.zip SSDT-7.dsl.zip SSDT-9.dsl.zip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaldMeister Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 Can't figure out the others. Would it be ok to merge them? SSDT-5.dsl.zip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buoo Posted February 7, 2015 Author Share Posted February 7, 2015 Can't figure out the others. Would it be ok to merge them? Device (PCI0) ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaldMeister Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 Device (PCI0) ??? Scope (\_SB.PCI0) would be the same as Scope (SB) { Device (PCI0) { some info } } Merging those 2 together solved the compiling error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buoo Posted February 7, 2015 Author Share Posted February 7, 2015 Scope (\_SB) { Scope (PCI0) { Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaldMeister Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 Pretty sure PCI0 is a Device, not a scope. To correct my previous error it should be Scope (_SB). The layout doesn't really matter, as long as the structure is preserved. Scope (\_SB.PCI0.LPCB.EC0) for example would translate into: Scope (_SB) { Device (PCI0) { Device (LPCB) { Device (EC0) { But you can also leave it as Scope (\_SB.PCI0.LPCB.EC0) Anyway, can the SSDT's be merged into one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buoo Posted February 7, 2015 Author Share Posted February 7, 2015 You can do it. The device (PCIO) is already used in the dsdt, I'm not sure if will make a conflict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaldMeister Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 Should not make a difference, it's just to have a correct structure. If the external objects are defined in the DSDT, all should be fine, i'll have a look, and hope to post a fixed version tomorrow. SSDT-9 is giving a lot of problems, because of the GFX0 missing a lot of information. Would it not be better to add these SSDT's to the current DSDT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buoo Posted February 8, 2015 Author Share Posted February 8, 2015 This could definitively solve the problem. I don't need all ACPI tables, I could go for dsdt, one SSDT and another one generated by piker's script for the speedstep. I'll drop the others. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts