[v2] acpi: Fix regression where _PPC is not read at boot even when ignore_ppc=0

Commit Message

Ingo Molnar June 7, 2009, 10:05 a.m. UTC

* Darrick J. Wong <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <[e-mail]>
Cc: Thomas Renninger <[e-mail]>
LKML-Reference: <[e-mail]>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[e-mail]>
---
 drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c |    6 +++++-
 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to [e-mail]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Comments

Darrick J. Wong July 15, 2009, 12:32 a.m. UTC | #1

On Sun, Jun 07, 2009 at 12:05:41PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> 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.

Hmm... the patch hasn't gone in to Linus' tree yet, nor has anyone else NAK'd
it.  I assume it's either Len Brown (ACPI) or Dave Jones (cpufreq) who ought to
pick it up?

--D
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to [e-mail]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Patch

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