Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757837AbZFICU0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jun 2009 22:20:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752114AbZFICUP (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jun 2009 22:20:15 -0400 Received: from ganesha.gnumonks.org ([213.95.27.120]:46496 "EHLO ganesha.gnumonks.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751749AbZFICUO (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jun 2009 22:20:14 -0400 Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 10:15:51 +0800 From: Harald Welte To: Linus Torvalds Cc: "Michael S. Zick" , Duane Griffin , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Dave Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] CPUFREQ: Enable acpi-cpufreq driver for VIA/Centaur CPUs Message-ID: <20090609021551.GG4455@prithivi.gnumonks.org> References: <20090606132847.GB14088@prithivi.gnumonks.org> <200906060846.36303.lkml@morethan.org> <200906060856.15016.lkml@morethan.org> <20090608102754.GP4106@prithivi.gnumonks.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1681 Lines: 44 On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 11:35:12AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Hmm. This all really should be just > > static int check_est_cpu(unsigned int cpuid) > { > struct cpuinfo_x86 *cpu = &cpu_data(cpuid); > return cpu_has(cpu, X86_FEATURE_EST); > } > > I suspect, with no vendor tests. That's the whole _point_ of CPU features, > after all. That's what I was thinking, too. If there was no such vendor test, it would have worked ever since the code was written (the C7 is by far not a new component, it's around for years). > If some vendor claims EST but doesn't actually support the EST interfaces, > we should just have fixups to clear the bit in the per-vendor cpuinfo > code, not in some random driver. agreed. > The only thing that makes me nervous about this is how close to 2.6.30 we > are. I'd be happier if this was resolved by doing this as a patch > post-2.6.30, and then adding 'stable@kernel.org' as a Cc: tag, and > backporting it to 2.6.30.1 if no problems appear. > > It's not like this is a regression, I think. > > Does that sound like a reasonable plan? Sounds fine with me. But what I would definitely suggest merging before 2.6.30 is the marking e_powersaver EXPERIMENTAL + DANGEROUS patch. Regards, -- - Harald Welte http://linux.via.com.tw/ ============================================================================ VIA Free and Open Source Software Liaison -- 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/