Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 08:37:59PM +0100, Juergen Kreileder wrote:
As you see, the crux of this patch is to check for the existence
of a via-pmu device in the firmware provided device-tree.
This isn't really good enough. My machine (G5) has a PMU, it's
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 12:37:50PM +0100, Juergen Kreileder wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 08:37:59PM +0100, Juergen Kreileder wrote:
As you see, the crux of this patch is to check for the existence
of a via-pmu device in the firmware provided
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 12:37:50PM +0100, Juergen Kreileder wrote:
It's a via-pmu:
Ok, so where is the problem ? The /dev/pmu stuff would be accessible
in acme/control-center/whatever-it-is, nd everyone will be happy ?
Unless you are telling me that
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 01:13:01PM +0100, Juergen Kreileder wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 12:37:50PM +0100, Juergen Kreileder wrote:
It's a via-pmu:
Ok, so where is the problem ? The /dev/pmu stuff would be accessible
in
As you see, the crux of this patch is to check for the existence of
a via-pmu device in the firmware provided device-tree.
This isn't really good enough. My machine (G5) has a PMU, it's in the
device-tree and /proc/pmu exists too. But it does not have
/dev/pmu[1]. You only get /dev/pmu the
Hello, please find here attached two files :
1) pmu_fix.patch : a new version of the 08 patch, with the change attached,
take it with a grain of salt since i had hunk offset when applying 08 alone.
2) pmu_fix.diff : the diff between the old version and the new one.
As you see, the crux of
6 matches
Mail list logo
