[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090607100541.GJ31286@elte.hu>
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 12:05:41 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...ibm.com>
Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] acpi: Fix regression where _PPC is not read at boot
even when ignore_ppc=0
* Darrick J. Wong <djwong@...ibm.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 12:12:19PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 12:13:38PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 01:10:42PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > > thanks - i've applied this and started testing it. I suspect 1-2
> > > > days of test-time should be enough to see if it breaks this box in
> > > > any way.
> > >
> > > My recollection was that you'd see the machine limited to 1GHz on every
> > > boot?
> >
> > That seems accurate based on my reading of the old thread.
> >
> > It's been a couple of weeks; has anyone seen any problems?
>
> Now it's been thirty days since I last heard from anyone. Has the
> problem been fixed by some other means?
I see no problems on that system here, with the patch below applied.
So, as i indicated above, feel free to pursue this angle, there's no
objection from me.
Thanks,
Ingo
------------->
>From 244b66ac1fbbe25262a9bcc28179e50930290de8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 10:54:14 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] acpi: Fix regression where _PPC is not read at boot even when ignore_ppc=0
Earlier, Ingo Molnar posted a patch to make it so that the kernel would avoid
reading _PPC on his broken T60. Unfortunately, it seems that with Thomas
Renninger's patch last July to eliminate _PPC evaluations when the processor
driver loads, the kernel never actually reads _PPC at all! This is problematic
if you happen to boot your non-T60 computer in a state where the BIOS _wants_
_PPC to be something other than zero.
So, put the _PPC evaluation back into acpi_processor_get_performance_info if
ignore_ppc isn't 1.
This second version restores the correct function call, which simplifies
the patch. I apologize for the churn and the poor eyesight.
Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@...ibm.com>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...ibm.com>
Cc: Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>
LKML-Reference: <20090430095414.GA19462@...f.ucam.org>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
---
drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c | 6 +++++-
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
index cafb410..85af717 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
@@ -348,7 +348,11 @@ static int acpi_processor_get_performance_info(struct acpi_processor *pr)
if (result)
goto update_bios;
- return 0;
+ /* We need to call _PPC once when cpufreq starts */
+ if (ignore_ppc != 1)
+ result = acpi_processor_get_platform_limit(pr);
+
+ return result;
/*
* Having _PPC but missing frequencies (_PSS, _PCT) is a very good hint that
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists