On Sat, 2016-11-05 at 14:37 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >
> > > So we seem to have thermal or ACPI regression in v4.9-rc3.
> > >
> > It is possible. Can you add either add printk
> > in acpi_processor_ppc_has_changed() or use ftrace and see do you
> > get to
> > these functions
> >
> > acpi_processor_ppc_init()
> > acpi_processor_ppc_has_changed()
> > acpi_processor_ppc_notifier()
> >
> > ?
>
> Yes, these seem to be called. Here's the log:
Try this
1. Either enable dyndebug or add
#define DEBUG 1
at the top of acpi-cpufreq.c
2.
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
index bb01dea..6074995 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
@@ -94,9 +94,14 @@ static int acpi_processor_ppc_notifier(struct
notifier_block *nb,
ppc = (unsigned int)pr->performance_platform_limit;
+ printk(KERN_ERR "ppc = %d\n", ppc);
+
if (ppc >= pr->performance->state_count)
goto out;
+ printk(KERN_ERR "ppc = %d freq-limit %d\n", ppc, pr-
>performance->states[ppc].
+ core_frequency * 1000);
+
cpufreq_verify_within_limits(policy, 0,
pr->performance->states[ppc].
core_frequency * 1000);
Thanks,
Srinivas��.n��������+%������w��{.n������_���v��z����n�r������&��z�ޗ�zf���h���~����������_��+v���)ߣ�
