1. 19 2月, 2010 1 次提交
    • D
      ACPI: Fix regression where _PPC is not read at boot even when ignore_ppc=0 · 455c0d71
      Darrick J. Wong 提交于
      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.
      Signed-off-by: NDarrick J. Wong <djwong@us.ibm.com>
      Signed-off-by: NLen Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
      455c0d71
  2. 25 11月, 2009 1 次提交
    • T
      [ACPI/CPUFREQ] Introduce bios_limit per cpu cpufreq sysfs interface · e2f74f35
      Thomas Renninger 提交于
      This interface is mainly intended (and implemented) for ACPI _PPC BIOS
      frequency limitations, but other cpufreq drivers can also use it for
      similar use-cases.
      
      Why is this needed:
      
      Currently it's not obvious why cpufreq got limited.
      People see cpufreq/scaling_max_freq reduced, but this could have
      happened by:
        - any userspace prog writing to scaling_max_freq
        - thermal limitations
        - hardware (_PPC in ACPI case) limitiations
      
      Therefore export bios_limit (in kHz) to:
        - Point the user that it's the BIOS (broken or intended) which limits
          frequency
        - Export it as a sysfs interface for userspace progs.
          While this was a rarely used feature on laptops, there will appear
          more and more server implemenations providing "Green IT" features like
          allowing the service processor to limit the frequency. People want
          to know about HW/BIOS frequency limitations.
      
      All ACPI P-state driven cpufreq drivers are covered with this patch:
        - powernow-k8
        - powernow-k7
        - acpi-cpufreq
      
      Tested with a patched DSDT which limits the first two cores (_PPC returns 1)
      via _PPC, exposed by bios_limit:
      # echo 2200000 >cpu2/cpufreq/scaling_max_freq
      # cat cpu*/cpufreq/scaling_max_freq
      2600000
      2600000
      2200000
      2200000
      # #scaling_max_freq shows general user/thermal/BIOS limitations
      
      # cat cpu*/cpufreq/bios_limit
      2600000
      2600000
      2800000
      2800000
      # #bios_limit only shows the HW/BIOS limitation
      
      CC: Pallipadi Venkatesh <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>
      CC: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
      CC: davej@codemonkey.org.uk
      CC: linux@dominikbrodowski.net
      Signed-off-by: NThomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de>
      Signed-off-by: NDave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
      e2f74f35
  3. 06 11月, 2009 1 次提交
    • Z
      ACPI: Notify the _PPC evaluation status to the platform · d81c45e1
      Zhao Yakui 提交于
      According to the ACPI spec(section 8.4.4.3) OSPM should convey the _PPC
      evaluations status to the platform if there exists the _OST object.
      The _OST contains two arguments:
      	The first is the PERFORMANCE notificatin event.
      	The second is the status of _PPC object.
      OSPM will convey the _PPC evaluation status to the platform.
      Of course when the module parameter of "ignore_ppc" is added, OSPM won't
      evaluate the _PPC object. But it will call the _OST object.
      
      At the same time the _OST object will be evaluated only when the PERFORMANCE
      notification event is received.
      Signed-off-by: NZhao Yakui <yakui.zhao@intel.com>
      Signed-off-by: NLen Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
      d81c45e1
  4. 24 9月, 2009 1 次提交
  5. 29 8月, 2009 1 次提交
  6. 30 5月, 2009 1 次提交
    • L
      ACPI: sanity check _PSS frequency to prevent cpufreq crash · 34d531e6
      Len Brown 提交于
      When BIOS SETUP is changed to disable EIST, some BIOS
      hand the OS an un-initialized _PSS:
      
              Name (_PSS, Package (0x06)
              {
                  Package (0x06)
                  {
                      0x80000000,	// frequency [MHz]
                      0x80000000,	// power [mW]
                      0x80000000,	// latency [us]
                      0x80000000,	// BM latency [us]
                      0x80000000,	// control
                      0x80000000	// status
                  },
      	    ...
      
      These are outrageous values for frequency,
      power and latency, raising the question where to draw
      the line between legal and illegal.  We tend to survive
      garbage in the power and latency fields, but we can BUG_ON
      when garbage is in the frequency field.
      
      Cpufreq multiplies the frequency by 1000 and stores it in a u32 KHz.
      So disregard a _PSS with a frequency so large
      that it can't be represented by cpufreq.
      
      https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=500311Signed-off-by: NLen Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
      34d531e6
  7. 28 3月, 2009 1 次提交
  8. 20 2月, 2009 1 次提交
  9. 04 2月, 2009 1 次提交
  10. 04 1月, 2009 1 次提交
  11. 08 11月, 2008 1 次提交
  12. 25 10月, 2008 1 次提交
    • M
      ACPI: cpufreq, processor: fix compile error in drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c · 16be87ea
      Miao Xie 提交于
      When trying to build 2.6.28-rc1 on ia64, make aborts with:
      
        CC      drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.o
        drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c:41:28: error: asm/cpufeature.h: No such file or directory
        drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c: In function ‘acpi_processor_get_performance_info’:
        drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c:364: error: implicit declaration of function ‘boot_cpu_has’
        drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c:364: error: ‘X86_FEATURE_EST’ undeclared (first use in this function)
        drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c:364: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
        drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c:364: error: for each function it appears in.)
        make[2]: *** [drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.o] Error 1
        make[1]: *** [drivers/acpi] Error 2
        make: *** [drivers] Error 2
      
      this patch fix it.
      Signed-off-by: NMiao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
      Acked-by: NThomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de>
      Signed-off-by: NLen Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
      16be87ea
  13. 23 10月, 2008 1 次提交
  14. 11 10月, 2008 1 次提交
  15. 23 9月, 2008 1 次提交
  16. 18 8月, 2008 1 次提交
  17. 16 8月, 2008 1 次提交
  18. 15 8月, 2008 1 次提交
  19. 31 7月, 2008 2 次提交
  20. 17 7月, 2008 1 次提交
  21. 29 4月, 2008 1 次提交
  22. 08 2月, 2008 1 次提交
  23. 02 1月, 2008 1 次提交
  24. 08 8月, 2007 1 次提交
  25. 27 4月, 2007 1 次提交
  26. 13 2月, 2007 2 次提交
  27. 03 2月, 2007 2 次提交
  28. 27 1月, 2007 1 次提交
    • I
      [PATCH] ACPI: fix cpufreq regression · e4233dec
      Ingo Molnar 提交于
      Recently cpufreq support on my laptop (Lenovo T60) broke completely: when
      it's plugged into AC it would never go higher than 1 GHz - neither 1.3 GHz
      nor 1.83 GHz is possible - no matter which governor (userspace, speed or
      ondemand) is used.
      
      After some cpufreq debugging i tracked the regression back to the following
      (totally correct) bug-fix commit:
      
         commit 0916bd3e
         Author: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
         Date:   Wed Nov 22 20:42:01 2006 -0500
      
          [PATCH] Correct bound checking from the value returned from _PPC method.
      
      This bugfix, which makes other laptops work, made a previously hidden
      (BIOS) bug visible on my laptop.
      
      The bug is the following: if the _PPC (Performance Present Capabilities)
      optional ACPI object is queried /after/ bootup then the BIOS reports an
      incorrect value of '2'.
      
      My laptop (Lenovo T60) has the following performance states supported:
      
         0: 1833000
         1: 1333000
         2: 1000000
      
      Per ACPI specification, a _PPC value of '0' means that all 3 performance
      states are usable.  A _PPC value of '1' means states 1 ..  2 are usable, a
      value of '2' means only state '2' (slowest) is usable.
      
      now, the _PPC object is optional, and it also comes with notification.
      Furthermore, when a CPU object is initialized, the _PPC object is
      initialized as well.  So the following evaluation of the _PPC object is
      superfluous:
      
       [<c028ba5f>] acpi_processor_get_platform_limit+0xa1/0xaf
       [<c028c040>] acpi_processor_register_performance+0x3b9/0x3ef
       [<c0111a85>] acpi_cpufreq_cpu_init+0xb7/0x596
       [<c03dab74>] cpufreq_add_dev+0x160/0x4a8
       [<c02bed90>] sysdev_driver_register+0x5a/0xa0
       [<c03d9c4c>] cpufreq_register_driver+0xb4/0x176
       [<c068ac08>] acpi_cpufreq_init+0xe5/0xeb
       [<c010056e>] init+0x14f/0x3dd
      
      And this is the point where my laptop's BIOS returns the incorrect value of
      '2'.  Note that it has not sent any notification event, so the value is
      probably not really intentional (possibly spurious), and Windows likely
      doesnt query it after bootup either.  Maybe the value is kept at '2'
      normally, and is only set to the real value when a true asynchronous event
      (such as AC plug event, battery switch, etc.) occurs.
      
      So i /think/ this is a grey area of the ACPI spec: per the letter of the
      spec the _PPC value only changes when notified, so there's no reason to
      query it after the system has booted up.  So in my opinion the best (and
      most compatible) strategy would be to do the change below, and to not
      evaluate the _PPC object in the acpi_processor_get_performance_info() call,
      but only evaluate it if _PPC is present during CPU object init, or if it's
      notified during an asynchronous event.  This change is more permissive than
      the previous logic, so it definitely shouldnt break any existing system.
      
      This also happens to fix my laptop, which is merrily chugging along at
      1.83 GHz now. Yay!
      Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
      Cc: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
      Acked-by: NLen Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
      Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
      Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      e4233dec
  29. 11 1月, 2007 1 次提交
  30. 24 11月, 2006 1 次提交
  31. 14 10月, 2006 1 次提交
  32. 30 6月, 2006 1 次提交
  33. 27 6月, 2006 3 次提交
  34. 26 6月, 2006 1 次提交
  35. 16 6月, 2006 1 次提交