On Fri, 25 May 2012 16:05:56 -0400 Jung-uk Kim <[email protected]> wrote:
> > if we decide so, then I think that we could still keep the things > > "simple". As we currently use the "wholesale" approach (all CPUs > > are set to the same P-state regardless of topology), then we could > > first make a pass of writing the MSR on all processors with a new > > P-state value and then make another pass of checking via MSR > > C001_0063 that the P-state is acquired. > > No, I believe checking MSRC001_0071[18:16] is much simpler if it > works. And it does not break current cpufreq(4) design principles. Okay, thank's for your input. I'll come up with a patch. But it won't happen until tuesday or wednesday next week. -- Homepage: www.yamagi.org XMPP: [email protected] GnuPG/GPG: 0xEFBCCBCB
pgpcDDwjMMIFb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
