From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756674Ab0IWUu2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Sep 2010 16:50:28 -0400 Received: from cpoproxy3-pub.bluehost.com ([67.222.54.6]:54179 "HELO cpoproxy3-pub.bluehost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1755358Ab0IWUu0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Sep 2010 16:50:26 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=virtuousgeek.org; h=Received:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:X-Mailer:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User; b=id9ldDUY+CafyKYse4+qmVBvDVro0BuOyEGkB59g5GeUZ2+K7eDhyPNlcjGTNmjsPSGF2rjt9eEy/KTyLKeDuNviuS2TgGZthiJtW5PY1vZ+hyAQhVSCvsv3aYNhu7VR; Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 13:50:23 -0700 From: Jesse Barnes To: Joe Perches Cc: Cesar Eduardo Barros , Matthew Garrett , platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] intel_ips: quieten "power or thermal limit exceeded" messages Message-ID: <20100923135023.39febc7e@jbarnes-desktop> In-Reply-To: <1285274825.25928.19.camel@Joe-Laptop> References: <4C770299.6000708@cesarb.net> <1282869660.1836.5.camel@Joe-Laptop> <4C77171E.6060008@cesarb.net> <1282894751.1836.41.camel@Joe-Laptop> <4C784650.2030200@cesarb.net> <1282962104.1946.179.camel@Joe-Laptop> <20100923133132.3faae5b3@jbarnes-desktop> <1285274825.25928.19.camel@Joe-Laptop> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.6 (GTK+ 2.18.9; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Identified-User: {10642:box514.bluehost.com:virtuous:virtuousgeek.org} {sentby:smtp auth 67.174.193.198 authed with jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org} Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 13:47:05 -0700 Joe Perches wrote: > On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 13:31 -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > I think the programmed limits are valid if they're nonzero and less > > than one of the available default limits. If they're not valid, we > > should just use the default values. I was thinking something like the > > below for MCP, but Joe you may want to just update your patch instead > > since it's more complete. > > You have my patch yes? > > You can probably integrate and validate it > better than I can with your proposed change. > > I don't have any of the hardware to test. > If I can otherwise help somehow, let me know. Ah ok, I'll fix it up and respin then, thanks. -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center