On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 06:31:08PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> The existing code (which I changed last) was very convoluted. I believe
> it was attempting to skip the overclock portion if the previous pcode
> write failed. When I last touched the code, I was preserving this
> behavior. There is so
The existing code (which I changed last) was very convoluted. I believe
it was attempting to skip the overclock portion if the previous pcode
write failed. When I last touched the code, I was preserving this
behavior. There is some benefit to doing it that way in that if the
first pcode access fail
