Comment 53 for bug 36014

I must say, this bug is the worst I have worked with. I had thought that the patches that were included in 2.6.17 fixed the issue, but the PPC commenting method still works to solve the issue, it is apparent that the bug still exists.

I have a few thoughts about how the bug might be solved, but none of my ideas are without disadvantages. It would not be overly difficult to write a patch that, if a Pentium M was detected, and the PPC tried to limit the frequency in this way (min_freq==max_freq), would cause the PPC's advice to be ignored. However, there is a possibility that this would not solve the problem for everyone, and it is also possible that it would cause problems for others. It might prove to be hard to maintain, as well, since I do not believe that such a patch would be considered suitable for inclusion in the vanilla kernel.

Unfortunately, I still don't understand *why* the PPC gives this false information. Does anyone have any ideas?