From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bruno Ducrot Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] acpi-cpufreq: merge acpi functionality of cpufreq drivers Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 18:11:30 +0200 Message-ID: <20060803161130.GL17014@poupinou.org> References: <44CE4F8A.5060600@linux.intel.com> <20060802092733.GI17014@poupinou.org> <44D0F292.8090403@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <44D0F292.8090403@linux.intel.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=gmane.org+glkc-cpufreq=gmane.org@lists.linux.org.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Alexey Starikovskiy Cc: cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk, Dave Jones On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 10:44:34PM +0400, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote: > Bruno Ducrot wrote: > > I've not checked carrefully but it seems to me you are breaking > > powernow-k8. > We do not touch powernow-k8, and tried to make sure we do not change > acpi-cpufreq to exclude any unknown hardware. What we tried to do, is to merge > different ways of accessing cpufreq with ACPI under single driver. Could you be > more specific how we break powernow-k8? I haven't seen the if (!check_speedstep_cpu(cpu)) {...} onto apci_cpufreq_cpu_init_acpi() indeed. Therefore you are correct. But it's funny to see that how acpi_cpufreq driver become so Intel specific. If AMD or any other vendors want to add their stuff onto acpi_cpufreq, then should we accept their patches as well? -- Bruno Ducrot -- Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? -- Don't know. Don't care.