Re: CONFIG_CPU_FREQ change

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com>]

>>> christian.limpach@gmail.com 20.02.06 19:12:30 >>>
>On 2/20/06, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com> wrote:
>> To my surprise, c/s 8888 enables CPU_FREQ for x86-64 rather than disabling it for i386. Did anyone at your end
actually
>> test that if enabled this at least builds properly now? Not to mention that of course this also should work... If I
>> remember right, the main reason for posting a patch to disable it on 32-bits (similar to how it was on 64-bits
before)
>> was that there were some missing symbols, and I don't think I saw any changesets addressing this. Also, from
previous
>> discussion I seem to recall that it was generally agreed that there is little point in allowing a single domain
(even
>> dom0) to decide whether/what power management actions should be taken without knowing about the requirements of the
rest
>> of the system...
>
>I went with the final statement in the thread where you posted the
>patch, from Jeremy Katz stating, that it was working for dom0 and that
>disabling it would remove functionality.  It is disabled for
>unprivileged guests.  I'm happy to disable it entirely, if it doesn't
>build or if it doesn't work.

p4-clockmod.c and speedstep-ich.c reference cpu_sibling_map, which doesn't exist in Xen kernels. There was one other
symbol missing, but I don't recall which one (nor which module it was referenced from).
As far as 'working' goes, I would assume that any respective statements refer to a dom0-only scenario only.

Jan