On 11/17/2013 03:17 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, November 09, 2013 06:36:18 PM al.stone@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Al Stone <ahs3@xxxxxxxxxx>
Make sure we are not in HW reduced mode when we rely on the the
P_LVL2_LAT or P_LVL3_LAT (c2_latency, c3_latency) values from the
FADT.
Signed-off-by: Al Stone <al.stone@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
index 28079a6..e2bd0bf 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
@@ -644,7 +644,7 @@ static int acpi_processor_get_power_info(struct acpi_processor *pr)
memset(pr->power.states, 0, sizeof(pr->power.states));
result = acpi_processor_get_power_info_cst(pr);
- if (result == -ENODEV)
+ if (!acpi_gbl_reduced_hardware && (result == -ENODEV))
result = acpi_processor_get_power_info_fadt(pr);
Wouldn't it be better to make acpi_processor_get_power_info_fadt() check
acpi_gbl_reduced_hardware ?
Hrm. Yes, it would. I'll change that.
if (result)
--
ciao,
al
-----------------------------------
Al Stone
Software Engineer
Linaro Enterprise Group
al.stone@xxxxxxxxxx
-----------------------------------
--
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
