Re: [ACPI] Fw: Re: 2.6.15-rc5-mm1

[Thomas R. <tr...@su...>]

Voluspa wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:20:15 +0300 Roman I Khimov wrote:
>> | Voluspa:
>>> Nope, neither "nocst" nor "acpi=nocst" gave me back the C1
>>> functionality...
>> Yep, same here, just tried.
> 
> Sorry about the red herring. I've patched 2.6.14 with the two acpi
> suggestions for this stable series that Greg KH posted (both single and
> combined):
> 
> [patch 10/26] ACPI: Prefer _CST over FADT for C-state capabilities
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=113446277408937&w=2
> 
> [patch 12/26] ACPI: Add support for FADT P_LVL2_UP flag
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=113446277427267&w=2
> 
> I thought nr 10 was the cause for the C-state regression, but neither
> effected my machine. C1 was used as it should. Now, I don't have the
> stomach for an un-cheerleaded "git bisect" of approximately four hours
> to find the real culprit. So unless someone waves the pompoms I'll slip
> quietly into the shadows, hoping the issue will disappear by itself
> before 2.6.15 is finalized.
> 
Maybe it is this little patch that also has been applied in rc5?
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5452

If you have ACPI_DEBUG=y compiled in you should have seen:
"BIOS reporting wrong ACPI idfor the processor", then it might be this one.

Good luck,

   Thomas