From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dominik Brodowski Subject: Re: cpufreq/linux/arch/arm/mach-sa1100 cpu-sa1100.c, 1.5, Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 17:01:07 +0200 Sender: cpufreq-bounces@www.linux.org.uk Message-ID: <20040830150107.GA7953@dominikbrodowski.de> References: <20040829124936.GA16770@dominikbrodowski.de> <20040830121923.GR29560@poupinou.org> <20040830131725.GA8355@dominikbrodowski.de> <20040830144940.GS29560@poupinou.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040830144940.GS29560@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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Bruno Ducrot Cc: cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 04:49:40PM +0200, Bruno Ducrot wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 03:17:25PM +0200, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > i386 can adapt to "hidden" changes of CPU frequencies quite well now, as the > > TSC code tries to detect "changes behind its back"... so these flags were > > not added out of concern for the x86 architecture, but because they seemed > > necessary for certain systems. Possibly I'm completely wrong, though... > > > > Well, for a strange reason, I was thinking all those stuff were made for > speedstep-ich and the (non)-merged speedstep-piix4, and maybe the > ownership stuff from ACPI.. I was mistaken I guess. The detection of changes behind cpufreq's back yes -- but for the speedstep-ich case, it was supposed to work around critical situations, not to cause panics... If you see a valid point for the PANIC flag for these drivers, please explain it to me, though. Thanks, Dominik