I got a regression when updated from 2.6.27-rc1 ro
2.6.27-rc2.  The noticeable symptom is the powernow-k8
driver stopped working because the call to 
acpi_processor_register_performance() is returning
-EINVAL.

Digging into the code a bit more, that's occurring
because acpi_processor_ppc_status is not set.
That should be set in acpi_processor_init(), but
that function is failing to register the ACPI
processor driver.

I've dug through the code and can't see why 
that call would fail.  It doesn't look like there
were any changes between 2.6.27-rc1 and 2.6.27-rc2,
but I may have missed something.

Any advice or suggestions in debugging this 
appreciated.

-Mark Langsdorf
Operating System Research Center
AMD

--

[ message continues ]

[Adding CCs]



--

[ message continues ]

Hi, Mark
   Will you please attach the output of acpidump on bug 11287?
   Of course it will be great if you can enable CONFIG_ACPI_DEBUG and
CONFIG_CPUFREQ_DEBUG in kernel configuration  and boot the system with
the option of "cpufreq.debug=7 acpi.debug_layer=0x01010000
acpi.debug_level=0x17".
   After the system is booted, please attach the output of dmesg.
   Please do the above test on both kernel 2.6.27-rc1 and 2.6.27-rc2.


--

[ message continues ]

False alarm.  I had acpi=off set in my command line for some
reason.

Thanks for the offer of help.

-Mark Langsdorf
Operating System Research Center
AMD

--

[ message continues ]

On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 11:02:10PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
 > [Adding CCs]
 > 
 > On Friday, 8 of August 2008, Langsdorf, Mark wrote:
 > > I got a regression when updated from 2.6.27-rc1 ro
 > > 2.6.27-rc2.  The noticeable symptom is the powernow-k8
 > > driver stopped working because the call to 
 > > acpi_processor_register_performance() is returning
 > > -EINVAL.
 > > 
 > > Digging into the code a bit more, that's occurring
 > > because acpi_processor_ppc_status is not set.
 > > That should be set in acpi_processor_init(), but
 > > that function is failing to register the ACPI
 > > processor driver.
 > > 
 > > I've dug through the code and can't see why 
 > > that call would fail.  It doesn't look like there
 > > were any changes between 2.6.27-rc1 and 2.6.27-rc2,
 > > but I may have missed something.
 > > 
 > > Any advice or suggestions in debugging this 
 > > appreciated.

a1531acd43310a7e4571d52e8846640667f4c74b perhaps related ?

	Dave

-- 
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
--

[ message continues ]