On 21.02.24 16:53, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: > On 21.02.24 16:39, Alex Deucher wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 1:06 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten >> Leemhuis) <regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On 20.02.24 21:18, Alex Deucher wrote: >>>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 2:41 PM Romano <romaniox@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> If the increased low range is allowed via boot option, like in proposed >>>>> patch, user clearly made an intentional decision. Undefined, but won't >>>>> fry his hardware for sure. Undefined is also overclocking in that >>>>> matter. You can go out of range with ratio of voltage vs frequency(still >>>>> within vendor's limits) for example and crash the system. >>> >>> But we have this "no regressions" rule for a reason. Adhering to it >>> strictly would afaics be counter-productive in this situation, but give >>> users some way to manually do what was possible before out-of-the box >>> IMHO is the minimum we should do. > [...] TWIMC, I mentioned this twice in mails to Linus, he didn't get involved, so I assume things are fine the way they are for him. And then it's of course totally fine for me, too. :-D Thx again for all your help and sorry for causing trouble, but in my line of work these "might or might not be a regression from Linus viewpoint, so let's get him involved" sometimes just happen. Ciao, Thorsten #regzbot resolve: apparently not a regression from Linus viewpoint
