On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 04:45:37PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > So I did a biset, and this is the result: > > > $ git bisect good > > > 0e64a0c982c06a6b8f5e2a7f29eb108fdf257b2f is first bad commit > > 0e64a0c has this cleanup, which isn't equivalent to the previous code: Please look at the patch I attached to the bug report. There is other code that is not equivalent. It's in comment #17: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13780#c17 And the patch itself: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=23048 This patch fixes my problem. > @@ -779,11 +834,12 @@ static int powernow_k8_cpu_init_acpi(struct powernow_k8_data *data) > goto err_out; > } > > - if ((data->acpi_data.control_register.space_id != ACPI_ADR_SPACE_FIXED_HARDWARE) || > - (data->acpi_data.status_register.space_id != ACPI_ADR_SPACE_FIXED_HARDWARE)) { > + space_id = data->acpi_data.control_register.space_id; > + if ((space_id != ACPI_ADR_SPACE_FIXED_HARDWARE) || > + (space_id != ACPI_ADR_SPACE_FIXED_HARDWARE)) { > dprintk("Invalid control/status registers (%x - %x)\n", > data->acpi_data.control_register.space_id, > - data->acpi_data.status_register.space_id); > + space_id); > goto err_out; > } > > This got fixed in 2c701b1 in 2.6.31-rc8, so this is most likely the > problem that Kurt was encountering. > > Kurt, could you try 2.6.31 and see if you still experience the issue? If > not, this can be closed. I also noticed this difference (comment #18), patched it, and tried it. This is not the issue. Also note that I tested the 2.6.31-rc9 kernel which still had the problem. The bug report might be a little confusing since after comment #18 there are older mails pasted in the bug report. Kurt -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
