Hmm.. This patch is mixing up two different flags here. APERF/MPERF
feature is independent of IDA, can exist on platforms without IDA as
well.
APERFMPERF is bit 0 of cpuid_ecx(6)
IDA is bit 1 of cpuid_eax(6)
Thanks,
Venki
On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 07:22 -0700, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> It's already defined here:
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/addon_cpuid_features.c:
> { X86_FEATURE_IDA, CR_EAX, 1, 0x00000006 },
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Renninger <trenn@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: <linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <cpufreq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c | 10 +++-------
> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> index 148857a..aaf832f 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> @@ -60,7 +60,6 @@ enum {
> };
>
> #define INTEL_MSR_RANGE (0xffff)
> -#define CPUID_6_ECX_APERFMPERF_CAPABILITY (0x1)
>
> struct acpi_cpufreq_data {
> struct acpi_processor_performance *acpi_data;
> @@ -645,12 +644,9 @@ static int acpi_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> acpi_processor_notify_smm(THIS_MODULE);
>
> /* Check for APERF/MPERF support in hardware */
> - if (c->x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL && c->cpuid_level >= 6) {
> - unsigned int ecx;
> - ecx = cpuid_ecx(6);
> - if (ecx & CPUID_6_ECX_APERFMPERF_CAPABILITY)
> - acpi_cpufreq_driver.getavg = get_measured_perf;
> - }
> + if (cpu_has(¤t_cpu_data, X86_FEATURE_IDA))
> + acpi_cpufreq_driver.getavg = get_measured_perf;
> +
>
> dprintk("CPU%u - ACPI performance management activated.\n", cpu);
> for (i = 0; i < perf->state_count; i++)
--
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
