From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dominik Brodowski Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6] powernow-k7 acpi support. Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:05:19 +0100 Sender: cpufreq-bounces@www.linux.org.uk Message-ID: <20040209150519.GA6531@dominikbrodowski.de> References: <20040209132659.GY13262@poupinou.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============14532545126634933==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20040209132659.GY13262@poupinou.org> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: cpufreq-bounces+glkc-cpufreq=gmane.org@www.linux.org.uk To: Bruno Ducrot Cc: davej@redhat.com, cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk --===============14532545126634933== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="jI8keyz6grp/JLjh" Content-Disposition: inline --jI8keyz6grp/JLjh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > 1- Include the powernow_acpi_init() as the first call in > powernow_decode_bios(), so that ACPI is used first, then if it failed, > the legacy method is used, > or > 2- Include the powernow_acpi_init() at powernow_decode_bios() just > before the 3 printk's stating to write that you should see > http://www.codemonkey.org.uk/projects/cpufreq/... >=20 > I guess 2- is 'better', but I would like to get some thought, though. Hm. That's difficult to decide, also for the speedstep-centrino case... I'd like to hear some opinions from ACPI and AMD guys first before we decide... > + printk("1\n"); > + if (acpi_processor_register_performance(&p, 0)) > + return -EIO; > + printk("2\n"); > + > + r =3D &p.control_register; > + if (r->space_id !=3D ACPI_ADR_SPACE_FIXED_HARDWARE) { How about if (p.control_register.space_id !=3D ACPI_ADR_SPACE_FIXED_HARDWARE) { ? > + retval =3D -ENODEV; > + goto out; > + } > + r =3D &p.status_register; > + if (r->space_id !=3D ACPI_ADR_SPACE_FIXED_HARDWARE) { same here... > + fsb =3D 100; /* XXX fix me */ Any idea on how to determine the FSB? > + latency =3D 10000; /* XXX don't trust bios writers.. */ heh... > + /* > + * We don't need no more acpi. > + * XXX is that true? > + */ No, it's not true. If we use ACPI, we need to keep it registered until we stop using it. Reasons: - keep buggy drivers from interfering [e.g. other cpufreq drivers which=20 register with ACPI first and with cpufreq later, or avoid registering with cpufreq because of being proprietary...] - honor _PPC limits - allow for ACPI interface (additions): This includes the /proc/acpi/processor/./performance interface which people still tend to use, and additions to=20 /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/ still to be written. Dominik --jI8keyz6grp/JLjh Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAJ6GvZ8MDCHJbN8YRAlubAJ9IrIHVOzJkbwzoGJijUkKQlCvFBACgk88M yuTY6oLUEa7hxNX1qbe8t2Y= =IJU2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --jI8keyz6grp/JLjh-- --===============14532545126634933== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Cpufreq mailing list Cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/cpufreq --===============14532545126634933==--