From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bruno Ducrot Subject: Re: 2.6.16.x CPUFREQ / SpeedStep-Centrino: couldn't enable Enchanced SpeedStep Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 12:01:36 +0200 Message-ID: <20060621100136.GF3700@poupinou.org> References: <200606191610.40597.ben.kevan@gmail.com> <20060620094357.GB3700@poupinou.org> <4498394B.3080909@goop.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4498394B.3080909@goop.org> 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: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk, Ben Kevan , linux@brodo.de On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 11:07:07AM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > Bruno Ducrot wrote: > >That's strange. Even if there is no processor object declared onto ACPI > >tables it should work with CONFIG_X86_SPEEDSTEP_CENTRINO_TABLE set since > >it's a bania. > > > > This message specifically means that the CPU isn't allowing EST to be > enabled, even though the CPU has the capability. I think the BIOS can > lock this down, like VT on later processors. Though I can't imagine > why, unless the machine is being sold as a cheaper/slower system than > the CPU they put in it... > > What does the SMM patch do? > I should have been more specific. The patch won't fix anything but add a warning if the BIOS do not allow the OS to take control of performances stuff. -- Bruno Ducrot -- Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? -- Don't know. Don't care.