Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760810AbZFIM0c (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jun 2009 08:26:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758137AbZFIM0P (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jun 2009 08:26:15 -0400 Received: from mx-out.daemonmail.net ([216.104.160.38]:58889 "EHLO mx-out.daemonmail.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759703AbZFIM0O (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Jun 2009 08:26:14 -0400 From: "Michael S. Zick" Reply-To: lkml@morethan.org To: Harald Welte Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] CPUFREQ: Enable acpi-cpufreq driver for VIA/Centaur CPUs Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 07:26:11 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: Linus Torvalds , Duane Griffin , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Dave Jones References: <20090609021551.GG4455@prithivi.gnumonks.org> In-Reply-To: <20090609021551.GG4455@prithivi.gnumonks.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200906090726.14187.lkml@morethan.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2017 Lines: 56 On Mon June 8 2009, Harald Welte wrote: > 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. > As posted somewhere in this thread, the acpi-cpufreq controller appears to work on my machine in initial tests. A few tests on only one machine is not much to go on and it isn't enough to call it "tested" but is forward progress. I was only risking my "throw-away" machine yesterday, will see what happens on the "good" one today (the HP-2133). @H.W. - are you running any of these changes on your HP-2133? Mike > Regards, -- 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/