From: Dave Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH][retry 3] Report the number of processors in PowerNow-k8 correctly Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 19:35:20 -0400 Message-ID: <20070406233520.GB30225@redhat.com> References: <46157337.8090600@amd.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <46157337.8090600@amd.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: cpufreq-bounces@lists.linux.org.uk Errors-To: cpufreq-bounces+glkc-cpufreq=m.gmane.org+glkc-cpufreq=m.gmane.org@lists.linux.org.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Mark Langsdorf Cc: cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 05:07:51PM -0500, Mark Langsdorf wrote: > The PowerNow! driver for Opteron reports the number of cores > in the system, but claims to report the number of processors. > Fix this minor cosmetic bug. > > Signed-Off-By: Bhavana Nagendra > Acked-by: Mark Langsdorf Time for retry #4. > --- linux-2.6.20/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/powernow-k8.c.old > 2007-04-05 15:43:36.000000000 -0500 > +++ linux-2.6.20/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/powernow-k8.c 2007-04-05 > 15:45:03.000000000 -0500 > @@ -661,7 +661,8 @@ static int fill_powernow_table(struct po > > dprintk("cfid 0x%x, cvid 0x%x\n", data->currfid, data->currvid); > data->powernow_table = powernow_table; Note in the two lines above that they begin space space tab. That should be space tab. Thunderbird took the liberty of adding some extras for you. > - print_basics(data); > + if (first_cpu(cpu_core_map[data->cpu]) == data->cpu) > + print_basics(data); > > for (j = 0; j < data->numps; j++) > if ((pst[j].fid==data->currfid) && > (pst[j].vid==data->currvid)) > @@ -814,7 +815,8 @@ static int powernow_k8_cpu_init_acpi(str > > /* fill in data */ > data->numps = data->acpi_data.state_count; > - print_basics(data); > + if (first_cpu(cpu_core_map[data->cpu]) == data->cpu) > + print_basics(data); > powernow_k8_acpi_pst_values(data, 0); > > /* notify BIOS that we exist */ Same here. I know this patch is small enough that I could have just hacked in the changes myself, but I'd really rather you keep fighting so that I don't have to hand-apply future patches too :) (Especially in case they end up being larger than this one) If you want to keep sending retries to me off-list, I'm ok with that. I think we can spare the list the retransmits. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk