On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 05:33:10PM +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 07:52 +0900, Mattia Dongili wrote: > > I'm wondering if it's worth updating cpufrequtils in Squeeze to the > > current version in testing/unstable. > > There are a couple of fixes that are worth considering in there and > > namely: fixing support for linux 3.0 (some modules have been moved > > and broke assumptions in cpufrequtils init scripts) and support for AMD > > family 20 CPUs. > > Apologies for the delay in getting back to you about this. > > [...] > > + * Bulk load only helper modules. Linux 3.0 shuffled cpufreq modules > > + locations a bit and now cpu drivers and helpers are in the same > > directory > > + (closes: #636141). > > + * Use modprobe -b in loadcpufreq to honour blacklisted modules > > + (closes: #592488). > > + * Load powernow-k8 for AMD family 20 (i.e. AMD E-350 cpus) > > + (closes: #627811). > > + * Stop changing printk levels when loading cpufreq modules (closes: > > #624575 > > + and closes: #596235). > > I've been debating whether to accept all of the changes, and changed my > mind a few times while arguing with myself. :-) Have the changes been
what is your current stance? :) > tested on a stable system? To be honest I haven't tried it myself on a stable system but I'll give it a go in the next days (towards the weekend most likely). The change that my have a funny dependency is the "-b" addition to modprobe but other than that it's all pretty safe and it's mostly removing unnecessary code or making the find predicate more specific. On the other hand there are a couple of backports of the whole package already so I don't expect many surprises. Thanks! -- mattia :wq! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
