On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 01:14:32PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> The patch titled
>
> cpufreq: _PPC frequency change issues - freq already lowered by BIOS
>
> has been added to the -mm tree. Its filename is
>
> cpufreq-_ppc-frequency-change-issues-freq-already-lowered-by-bios.patch
>
> See http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/added-to-mm.txt to find
> out what to do about this
>
*puzzled look*
I merged this into cpufreq-git last week.
diff-tree 0961dd0... (from c70ca00...)
Author: Thomas Renninger <[email protected]>
Date: Thu Jan 26 18:46:33 2006 +0100
[CPUFREQ] _PPC frequency change issues
Did your pull fail for some reason?
Dave
Dave Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 01:14:32PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > The patch titled
> >
> > cpufreq: _PPC frequency change issues - freq already lowered by BIOS
> >
> > has been added to the -mm tree. Its filename is
> >
> > cpufreq-_ppc-frequency-change-issues-freq-already-lowered-by-bios.patch
> >
> > See http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/added-to-mm.txt to find
> > out what to do about this
> >
>
> *puzzled look*
>
> I merged this into cpufreq-git last week.
>
> diff-tree 0961dd0... (from c70ca00...)
> Author: Thomas Renninger <[email protected]>
> Date: Thu Jan 26 18:46:33 2006 +0100
>
> [CPUFREQ] _PPC frequency change issues
>
>
>
> Did your pull fail for some reason?
>
> Dave
I got this answer from Andrew, maybe he also picked up the patch
from cpufreq list?:
____________
This generates 100% rejects against the current cpufreq tree. I'd suggest
that you prepare patches against latest -mm, which includes
git-cpufreq.patch.
Please also include the required Signed-off-by: tags, as per section 11 of
Documentation/SubmittingPatches.
____________
The patch needs a (!policy->cur) check for some cpufreq drivers, shall I resend
the whole patch with this one added or is the "ontop" patch I answered to
[email protected] (Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Re: 2.6.16-rc1-mm4) enough?
Thomas
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:11:08PM +0100, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> >Did your pull fail for some reason?
> >
> > Dave
>
> I got this answer from Andrew, maybe he also picked up the patch
> from cpufreq list?:
> ____________
> This generates 100% rejects against the current cpufreq tree.
Ah, that's because I changed the indentation slightly when I merged it.
> The patch needs a (!policy->cur) check for some cpufreq drivers, shall I
> resend
> the whole patch with this one added or is the "ontop" patch I answered to
> [email protected] (Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Re: 2.6.16-rc1-mm4) enough?
The 'ontop' is enough probably (I'm having a 'heavy' email day, so I've not
got to it yet).
Dave