Re: [PATCH 2.6] powernow-k7 acpi support.

[Bruno Ducrot <ducrot@poupinou.org>]

On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 06:08:12PM +0000, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 10:03:20AM +0100, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
>  > On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 07:58:31PM +0100, Bruno Ducrot wrote:
>  > > Ok, you win.  That one is ok ?
>  > 
>  > Looks good as well. All we have to decide is where to call these functions,
>  > though... and Davej has to decide whether he likes it, too :-)
> 
> Looks good to me, though I'm missing the part where you wire this up
> to the rest of the code. I see two possibilities.

Well, that need to be decided at first.  I'm acually testing it by
calling that function in powernow_decode_bios() with something like
that:


--- linux-2.6.3-bk-acpi/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/powernow-k7.c	2004/02/10 20:04:05	1.2
+++ linux-2.6.3-bk-acpi/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/powernow-k7.c	2004/02/10 20:05:12
@@ -426,6 +426,9 @@
 	unsigned int etuple;
 	unsigned int ret;
 
+	if (powernow_acpi_init() == 0)
+		return 0;
+
 	etuple = cpuid_eax(0x80000001);
 	etuple &= 0xf00;
 	etuple |= (c->x86_model<<4)|(c->x86_mask);


but I guess this is not what people want probably, especially if there
are good PST's.

> - fallback to acpi when we detect bad PST's.

That sound good.

> - module parameter to force usage of acpi (override PST)

Yes, or check if the laptop is blacklisted.

-- 
Bruno Ducrot

--  Which is worse:  ignorance or apathy?
--  Don't know.  Don't care.