On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 02:02:22PM +0200, Thomas Renninger wrote: > On Wednesday 27 August 2008 19:03:52 Dave Jones wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 05:44:01PM +0200, Thomas Renninger wrote: > > > I posted this on acpi list first. > > > Andi had concerns about what the best way would be to get > > > this merged as two subsystems are touched: > > > -------- > > > Looks good to me now. The only issue is that the patchkit is cross > > > subsystem (cpufreq and ACPI). Either the patches go in through Andrew or > > > we need to figure out how to merge this. > > > > I really couldn't care less about how this gets merged. > > It all seems rather pointless to me. > ?!? > The message "MP tables not supported" (or similar) on AMD machines > is rather common. > On Intel CPUs the same problem more seems to be exposed by a _PPC > (an ACPI cpufreq related function), but missing _PSS frequency tables. > > Both have the same cause: The CPU is newer than the BIOS and thus > the BIOS cannot fill the ACPI table with valid CPU frequency information. > > I thought especially the two CPU frequency patches I sent, trying to detect > above and tell the user about an old or broken BIOS nicely illustrates > how useful this is? > > People (including myself) waste hours of time disassembling acpi tables > and digging in the kernel code why the CPU which is supposed to be > CPU frequency capable cannot switch frequencies. I meant pointless in the sense "this doesn't do anything that the current printk doesn't already tell us" Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
