On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 09:14:11PM +0200, Lukas Hejtmanek wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 05:44:03PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> > Yes it works great if your system is wired up to use VID#C,
> > but what if it isn't ? It's got a 1 in 4 chance of working,
> > and what it'll do in the other 3 cases is anyones guess.
> >
> > As there's no way to tell which VID is in use, the only
> > option on these systems is to use either the acpi
> > mode of this driver, or acpi-cpufreq instead.
>
> Is this the same reason why this patch wasn't accepted in mainline?
> http://fabrice.bellamy.club.fr/bdz.undervolt.2005.10.22.a.patch
No. That's was rejected due to the
"don't give people semi-automatic weapons to shoot their feet off with" principle.
The problem with patches like this, and the "let cpufreq overclock" patches,
and the "let me input my own voltage/freq pairs via sysfs" patches
is some lucky soul (yours truly) gets to deal with the fallout when peoples
computers crash after trying patches like this. My inbox has more than enough
problems for me to dig into, without introducing more problems that are
frankly, undebuggable.
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
