From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH] speedstep-centrino should ignore upper performance control bits Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 18:29:55 -0500 Message-ID: <20061108232955.GL3309@redhat.com> References: <20061106233923.GA15063@us.ibm.com> <20061107021441.GA10457@isilmar.linta.de> <200611070209.39817.len.brown@intel.com> <20061107184902.GA11620@us.ibm.com> <20061108232119.GB28012@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061108232119.GB28012@us.ibm.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: cpufreq-bounces@lists.linux.org.uk Errors-To: cpufreq-bounces+glkc-cpufreq=m.gmane.org+glkc-cpufreq=m.gmane.org@lists.linux.org.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Gary Hade Cc: cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk, Dominik Brodowski On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 03:21:19PM -0800, Gary Hade wrote: > The above result was obtained with Woodcrest processors > installed in the system. With Dempsey processors the > address space is ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_IO and the 2.6.19-rc4 > version of acpi-cpufreq loads and functions correctly. > > The patch I provided modifies the in-kernel copy of the ACPI > data which is the wrong thing to do. I will post an improved > patch as soon as the Woodcrests are reinstalled and I am able > to test it. Argh. I sat on the fence on this one until the dest settled, and now, as soon as I merge it, this happens. Bah! Send an incremental against cpufreq.git so I don't have to reconstruct the whole git tree? Or is the right change completely different, causing a complete revert of this? Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk