>-----Original Message----- >From: cpufreq-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >[mailto:cpufreq-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bruno Ducrot >Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 5:52 AM >To: davej@xxxxxxxxxx >Cc: cpufreq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >Subject: Re: [PATCH] allow the highest frequency if bios think so. > >On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 11:30:42AM +0100, Bruno Ducrot wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> processor_perflib.c::acpi_processor_ppc_notifier() check if the value >> returned by the processor's _PPC method is 0 and return failed if so. >> This is wrong since 0 indicate that the bios think the >processor can go >> to the highest frequency. This patch for example fix the HP >NX 6125 to >> allow its highest frequency to be available. >> >> Signed-off-by: Bruno Ducrot <ducrot@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> --- linux-2.6.19-rc6/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c >2006/11/21 10:18:39 1.1 >> +++ linux-2.6.19-rc6/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c >2006/11/21 10:18:55 >> @@ -83,8 +83,6 @@ static int acpi_processor_ppc_notifier(s >> goto out; >> >> ppc = (unsigned int)pr->performance_platform_limit; >> - if (!ppc) >> - goto out; Hmmm Great find..... A perfect example of the bug that was quietly hiding under our noses all these years.... >> if (ppc > pr->performance->state_count) > >BTW I'm wondering if this check should be : > if (ppc >= pr->performance->state_count) >> goto out; > Yes. I think this should change to >= as well. Otherwise indexing states with this ppc can go out of bounds. Thanks, Venki - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
