Might this be worth something more explicit than a "dprintk", such as
printk(KERN_INFO "Intel(R) Xeon(R) 7100 processors are broken and may lock "
"up on frequency changes: disabling acpi-cpufreq.\n")
?
Best,
Dominik
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 12:58:40PM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
> Updated patch with dprintk for output message.
>
> P.
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> index ae9b503..05cc4b1 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> @@ -590,6 +590,23 @@ static const struct dmi_system_id sw_any_bug_dmi_table[] = {
> };
> #endif
>
> +static int acpi_cpufreq_blacklist(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> +{
> + /* http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/specupdate/314554.pdf
> + * AL30 ???A Machine Check Exception (MCE) Occurring during an
> + * Enhanced Intel SpeedStep?? Technology Ratio Change May Cause
> + * Both Processor Cores to Lock Up */
> + if (c->x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL) {
> + if ((c->x86 == 15) && (c->x86_model == 6) &&
> + (c->x86_mask == 8)) {
> + dprintk("Processor does not support cpu frequency "
> + "changes.\n");
> + return -ENODEV;
> + }
> + }
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> static int acpi_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> {
> unsigned int i;
> @@ -602,6 +619,10 @@ static int acpi_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>
> dprintk("acpi_cpufreq_cpu_init\n");
>
> + result = acpi_cpufreq_blacklist(c);
> + if (result)
> + return result;
> +
> data = kzalloc(sizeof(struct acpi_cpufreq_data), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!data)
> return -ENOMEM;
--
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
