On Friday 04 September 2009 11:27:19 Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-09-04 at 11:25 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-09-04 at 11:19 +0200, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> > > You still use struct perf_pair split/hi/lo members in #ifdef
__i386__
> > > case which you deleted above.
> >
> > > > shift_count = fls(h);
> > > >
> > > > - cur.aperf.whole >>= shift_count;
> > > > - cur.mperf.whole >>= shift_count;
> > > > + cur.aperf >>= shift_count;
> > > > + cur.mperf >>= shift_count;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > if (((unsigned long)(-1) / 100) < cur.aperf.split.lo) {
> > > Same here, possibly still elsewhere.
> > > Is this only x86_64 compile tested?
> >
> > Of course, who still has 32bit only hardware anyway ;-)
> >
> > Will fix, thanks for spotting that.
>
> Hrmm, on that, does it really make sense to maintain the i386 code
> path?
>
> How frequently is that code called and what i386 only chips support
> aperf/mperf, atom?
Venki should know best.
Thomas
--
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
