I demand that Alan Jenkins may or may not have written... > On 12/9/09, Darren Salt <[email protected]> wrote: >> I demand that Alan Jenkins may or may not have written... >> [snip] >>> I think the kernel should disable SHE by default on the 701 models. I >>> don't mind if it provides a "force_cpufv" option with an appropriate >>> warning. >> And I have no problem with modifying eeepc-acpi-scripts accordingly: >> adding documentation ("How to break your 701"), and generating a warning >> and not altering the SHE setting if this option is missing and the script >> is being run on a 701. >> We'll need to support current and older kernels for a while yet... >> [snip] >>> I don't think it should be left to userspace to get this right. >> Agreed. >> [snip]
> Ok. If we use a normal module option, the kernel won't be able to provide > a warning when it is set at run-time. I meant the init script for eeepc-acpi-scripts, but having the kernel output a warning wouldn't be a bad thing. > Setting module parameters under /sys/module/*/parameters just sets a > variable; it doesn't call into the module. True... > So I guess we want "force_enable_cpufv" as a new sysfs attribute. Probably, yes. I was thinking along the lines of "you want this, you make sure that the appropriate line is present in a file in /etc/modprobe.d", but I think that this will be more supportable in that it's easier for your average user to test without committing to the change. -- | Darren Salt | linux at youmustbejoking | nr. Ashington, | Doon | using Debian GNU/Linux | or ds ,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army | + http://www.youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk/ & http://tlasd.wordpress.com/ Beware of Geeks bearing GIFs. _______________________________________________ Debian-eeepc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/debian-eeepc-devel
