Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 12:32:58 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de>
Cc: djwong@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] acpi: Fix regression where _PPC is not read at boot
	even when ignore_ppc=0
Message-ID: <20090416103258.GR9813@elte.hu>
References: <20090415225348.GW8311@plum> <20090416002712.GX8311@plum> <200904161201.13409.trenn@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200904161201.13409.trenn@suse.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1308
Lines: 31


* Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de> wrote:

> The *reevaluate* implies that the _PPC value has been 
> evaluated/initialized by the OS already and Ingo's patch would be 
> wrong then. I'd like to have a look at the T60's ACPI parts and 
> find out what exactly (or if at all) makes _PPC to return sane 
> values, I expect it's _PDC.
> 
> Hmm, I could also imagine that Ingo's T60 patch is not needed 
> anymore since Yakui's patch 
> (0ac3c571315a53c14d2733564f14ebdb911fe903). This one could make 
> sure that _PDC is evaluated first making the internal ACPI _PPC 
> state initialize and makes sure _PPC gets only called afterwards.
> 
> If this patch does not break Ingo's T60, I think this should go 
> in. Due to Yakui's reordering/cleanup of ACPI function calls, I 
> think also the notifier chain I introduced is not needed anymore 
> and I can clean this up if I find some time.

Feel free to do so, if it's expected to work. I'll let you know if 
it breaks the T60 box - i still have it in the -tip test mix.

Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/