* Thomas Renninger <trenn@xxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxx> Ingo -- 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
