From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH] Longhaul - Fix hole Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 22:29:18 -0500 Message-ID: <20061229032918.GA4516@redhat.com> References: <458E7AD7.4070306@interia.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <458E7AD7.4070306@interia.pl> 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="windows-1252" To: =?utf-8?B?UmFmYcWC?= Bilski Cc: Dave Jones , cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk On Sun, Dec 24, 2006 at 02:04:23PM +0100, Rafa=C5=82 Bilski wrote: > User with Nehemiah B is complain that Longhaul don't=20 > work for him. I don't know much about this issue in=20 > this moment, but looking at source I see possible bug=20 > related to ACPI PM2 register. Patch below. Can you go into some more detail for the purpose of the changelog? The above is very vague. > static int __devexit longhaul_cpu_exit(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > @@ -774,8 +779,8 @@ static int __init longhaul_init(void) > =20 > #ifdef CONFIG_SMP > if (num_online_cpus() > 1) { > - return -ENODEV; > printk(KERN_ERR PFX "More than 1 CPU detected, longhaul disabled.\n"); > + return -ENODEV; > } > #endif Gah, I recall fixing this at least twice. Somehow that didn't get pushed ou= t. I'll commit this bit separately whilst I'm waiting for the description of the other patch. Thanks, Dave --=20 http://www.codemonkey.org.uk