lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] acpi: Fix regression where _PPC is not read at boot even when ignore_ppc=0

* Darrick J. Wong <djwong@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 12:12:19PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 12:13:38PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 01:10:42PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > > thanks - i've applied this and started testing it. I suspect 1-2
> > > > days of test-time should be enough to see if it breaks this box in
> > > > any way.
> > >
> > > My recollection was that you'd see the machine limited to 1GHz on every
> > > boot?
> >
> > That seems accurate based on my reading of the old thread.
> >
> > It's been a couple of weeks; has anyone seen any problems?
>
> Now it's been thirty days since I last heard from anyone. Has the
> problem been fixed by some other means?

I see no problems on that system here, with the patch below applied.
So, as i indicated above, feel free to pursue this angle, there's no
objection from me.

Thanks,

Ingo

------------->
From 244b66ac1fbbe25262a9bcc28179e50930290de8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 10:54:14 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] acpi: Fix regression where _PPC is not read at boot even when ignore_ppc=0

Earlier, Ingo Molnar posted a patch to make it so that the kernel would avoid
reading _PPC on his broken T60. Unfortunately, it seems that with Thomas
Renninger's patch last July to eliminate _PPC evaluations when the processor
driver loads, the kernel never actually reads _PPC at all! This is problematic
if you happen to boot your non-T60 computer in a state where the BIOS _wants_
_PPC to be something other than zero.

So, put the _PPC evaluation back into acpi_processor_get_performance_info if
ignore_ppc isn't 1.

This second version restores the correct function call, which simplifies
the patch. I apologize for the churn and the poor eyesight.

Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de>
LKML-Reference: <20090430095414.GA19462@srcf.ucam.org>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
---
drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c | 6 +++++-
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
index cafb410..85af717 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
@@ -348,7 +348,11 @@ static int acpi_processor_get_performance_info(struct acpi_processor *pr)
if (result)
goto update_bios;

- return 0;
+ /* We need to call _PPC once when cpufreq starts */
+ if (ignore_ppc != 1)
+ result = acpi_processor_get_platform_limit(pr);
+
+ return result;

/*
* Having _PPC but missing frequencies (_PSS, _PCT) is a very good hint that

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-07 12:09    [W:0.068 / U:1.224 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site