[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: stable-proposed-updates: considering cpufrequtils

On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 07:52 +0900, Mattia Dongili wrote:
> I'm wondering if it's worth updating cpufrequtils in Squeeze to the
> current version in testing/unstable.
> There are a couple of fixes that are worth considering in there and
> namely: fixing support for linux 3.0 (some modules have been moved
> and broke assumptions in cpufrequtils init scripts) and support for AMD
> family 20 CPUs.

Apologies for the delay in getting back to you about this.

> +  * Bulk load only helper modules. Linux 3.0 shuffled cpufreq modules
> +    locations a bit and now cpu drivers and helpers are in the same directory
> +    (closes: #636141).
> +  * Use modprobe -b in loadcpufreq to honour blacklisted modules
> +    (closes: #592488).
> +  * Load powernow-k8 for AMD family 20 (i.e. AMD E-350 cpus)
> +    (closes: #627811).
> +  * Stop changing printk levels when loading cpufreq modules (closes: #624575
> +    and closes: #596235).

I've been debating whether to accept all of the changes, and changed my
mind a few times while arguing with myself. :-)  Have the changes been
tested on a stable system?



Reply to: