cpufreq powernow-k8: Remove firmware warning in zero transition latency case
PATCH 1/1 cpufreq powernow-k8: Remove firmware warning in zero transition latency case
AMD's BKDG documents that a zero transition latency should get passed for several recent CPU models.
-> This isn't a firmware bug.
I did not dare to really pass the zero latency to the cpufreq core, this would need careful checking whether this does not show side effects. -> Still modify latency to 1 (us) in case BIOS passes zero.
--- drivers/cpufreq/powernow-k8.c | 13 ++----------- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
drivers/cpufreq/powernow-k8.c +2 -11
@@ -1022,18 +1022,9 @@ static int get_transition_latency(struct powernow_k8_data *data)if (cur_latency > max_latency) max_latency = cur_latency; } -if (max_latency ==0 ) { -/* -* Fam 11h and later may return 0 as transition latency. This -* is intended and means "very fast". While cpufreq core and -* governors currently can handle that gracefully, better set it -* to 1 to avoid problems in the future. -*/ -if (boot_cpu_data.x86 <0x11 ) - printk(KERN_ERR FW_WARN PFX "Invalid zero transition " -"latency\n" ); +if (max_latency ==0 ) max_latency =1 ; - } +/* value in usecs, needs to be in nanoseconds */ return 1000 * max_latency; }
Quoted 3 lines · Thomas Renninger
AMD's BKDG documents that a zero transition latency should get passed for several recent CPU models.
-> This isn't a firmware bug.
but the test you're deleting is checking for family < 11h.
My reading of that comment is that it _was_ a firmware bug on earlier systems.
Dave
Quoted 6 lines · Dave Jones
Quoted 3 lines · Thomas Renninger
AMD's BKDG documents that a zero transition latency should get passed for several recent CPU models.
-> This isn't a firmware bug.but the test you're deleting is checking for family < 11h.
Eh, right. And in 2.6.32 we had:
- if (boot_cpu_data.x86 != 0x11)
which I now removed and wanted to submit mainline...
Quoted 2 lines
My reading of that comment is that it _was_ a firmware bug on earlier systems.
Not sure whether earlier systems really showed this, but the test is correct, you can ignore the patch.
Thanks for pointing that out,
Thomas