Dominik Brodowski wrote:
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")
Sure, np. I was just following what I thought the rest of the code was
doing. I like a printk better than a dprintk myself ....
New patch.
P.
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
index ae9b503..6e9c2b3 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
@@ -590,6 +590,24 @@ 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 â??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)) {
+ printk(KERN_INFO "Intel(R) Xeon(R) 7100 processors "
+ "are broken and may lock up on frequency "
+ "changes: disabling acpi-cpufreq.\n");
+ return -ENODEV;
+ }
+ }
+ return 0;
+}
+
static int acpi_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
{
unsigned int i;
@@ -602,6 +620,10 @@ 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;
