From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753881AbZBCXaJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Feb 2009 18:30:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752253AbZBCX34 (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Feb 2009 18:29:56 -0500 Received: from mx1.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:36178 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752064AbZBCX3z (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Feb 2009 18:29:55 -0500 From: Thomas Renninger To: Dave Jones Subject: Re: CPUFREQ: Ondemand and powernow-k8 enhancements/fixes/cleanups Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 00:29:51 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: mark.langsdorf@amd.com, cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1233679606-1971-1-git-send-email-trenn@suse.de> <20090203212106.GK10486@codemonkey.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20090203212106.GK10486@codemonkey.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200902040029.51958.trenn@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 03 February 2009 10:21:06 pm Dave Jones wrote: > On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 05:46:39PM +0100, Thomas Renninger wrote: > > These are the same I sent out some days ago, but messed up the > > cpufreq list address. > > > > The patches are based against Dave's cpufreq git tree's fixes branch. > > 'fixes' is for stuff pending for .29, which this patchset seems out > of scope for. Unfortunatly, there's a ton of checkpatch cleanups up > the 'next' branch which makes this impossible to apply. Mark's latency fix for powernow-k8 should go to .29. It's a sever fix which makes powernow-k8 work fine with ondemand without tweaking sampling rate. Otherwise you could hit sever performance loss, e.g. there are machines out there which currently only check for frequency changes every 1.2 seconds (see comment #24): https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=436717 According to Mark, Windows PowerNow! driver also uses these ACPI values and it got tested on various different K8 CPUs. It should be the first patch touching powernow-k8, so this one can be picked out of the rest. > Can you rediff against that branch please? The rest is not critical, I will rediff everything. I expect you still want to have the whole series rebased, even if you decide to add above one to .29? Thanks, Thomas