From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262279AbTJJTcL (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Oct 2003 15:32:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262436AbTJJTcK (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Oct 2003 15:32:10 -0400 Received: from pix-525-pool.redhat.com ([66.187.233.200]:14854 "EHLO lacrosse.corp.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262279AbTJJTcI (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Oct 2003 15:32:08 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:31:51 +0100 From: Dave Jones To: Jurgen Kramer Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [2.6.0-test7] cpufreq longhaul trouble Message-ID: <20031010193151.GI25856@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones , Jurgen Kramer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1065784536.2071.3.camel@paragon.slim> <20031010184241.GC32600@redhat.com> <1065812601.1842.6.camel@paragon.slim> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1065812601.1842.6.camel@paragon.slim> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 09:03:22PM +0200, Jurgen Kramer wrote: > Ok, changing line 394 gives: > > > longhaul: VIA C3 'Ezra' [C5C] CPU detected. Longhaul v1 supported. > longhaul: MinMult=3.0x MaxMult=6.0x > longhaul: FSB: 133MHz Lowestspeed=399MHz Highestspeed=798MHz > > > But should it really be v1? With 2.4.20 I get: > ep 28 21:09:28 paradox kernel: longhaul: VIA CPU detected. Longhaul > version 2 supported > Sep 28 21:09:28 paradox kernel: longhaul: CPU currently at 798MHz (133 x > 6.0) > Sep 28 21:09:28 paradox kernel: longhaul: MinMult(x10)=30 > MaxMult(x10)=60 > Sep 28 21:09:28 paradox kernel: longhaul: Lowestspeed=399000 > Highestspeed=798000 > Sep 28 21:09:28 paradox kernel: longhaul: New FSB:133 Mult(x10):60 > Sep 28 21:09:28 paradox kernel: longhaul: New FSB:133 Mult(x10):30 Note that the various speeds etc now match. Why we got away with this in 2.4 I'm not sure, depends which patch you used. > x86info -a gives (running 2.6.0test7): ... > /dev/cpu/0/msr: No such device Heh. this was the important bit.. Doesn't matter now anyway. Dave -- Dave Jones http://www.codemonkey.org.uk