Re: [ACPI] [PATCH 1/2] 2.6: use scaling_available_freqs in acpi-cpufreq-ioport driver

[Bruno Ducrot <ducrot@poupinou.org>]

On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:50:06PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On ??t 26-02-04 18:28:23, Bruno Ducrot wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 11:16:42PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> 
> > > >  have a loook at the "userpace frequency governer" under 2.6.x 
> > > 
> > > That's not the same. frequency governor can select frequency *from the
> > > set provided by BIOS*. I want to override frequency/voltage table from
> > > bios.
> > 
> > It need to be done IMO in a driver, definitely not in cpufreq core, and
> > worst that may need to be adapted to the acpi perflib certainly (when
> > all pending patches for will go to mainstream I guess).
> 
> Well, it still looks pretty generic to me. Having same code in k7
> and k8 drivers does not sound right.

That can be shared by the two drivers if that is needed, but I don't
think that part going to the cpufreq frequency tables.
But I espected that powernow k7 and k8 are different beasts enough?
There is no rvo, irt etc. for example in powernow-k7.

> Anyway, lets see what happens. If acpi mostly solves it, it is not
> necessary.
> 
> > For now, you can adapt with something like the powernow-k7 override
> > patches at http://www.poupinou.org/cpufreq/powernow-k7/ if really
> > needed.
> 
> > Also, you should check that in fact the acpi perflib stuff will give
> > you more accurate results.  For the powernow-k7 case, unfortunately, it
> > sound like that acpi perflib whereas giving good results still could be
> > problematics for some acer IIRC due to a bad VID for one entry, and then
> > it may be usefull for them to get the override patch merged IMO.
> 
> Hmm, if there's really only _one_ machine to fix, perhaps DMI
> blacklist is the right solution.

Yes, but I guess there are more though.  Just that we don't get enough
reports yet.

-- 
Bruno Ducrot

--  Which is worse:  ignorance or apathy?
--  Don't know.  Don't care.