From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dominik Brodowski Subject: Re: powernow-k7 (again) on 2.4.20 Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 13:58:00 +0200 Sender: cpufreq-admin@www.linux.org.uk Message-ID: <20030722115800.GA1160@brodo.de> References: <03072108302101.00222@gate> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <03072108302101.00222@gate> Errors-To: cpufreq-admin@www.linux.org.uk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: emmel Cc: cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk Hi "emmel", This is not a cpufreq bug, but a bug in the BIOS. It reports wrong values in the "PST" which should be dumped in "dmesg" when you load the powernow module [or once it is started, in case you built it into the kernel]. You might want to try up- or downgrading your BIOS or to override the BIOS table; some patches for this are in the list archives, Dave Jones intends to add a generic capability to override the PST to the powernow module in future. Dominik On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 08:30:21AM +0200, emmel wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > I've posted that before, but I've serious trouble with cpufreq. It returns > once loaded it makes the CPU speed drop from 1.4GHz to 800MHz (666 when > throttled). If the kde info thingy is somewhat relyable at all that's for > real - the bogomips drop as well. Returning to 1.4GHz seems impossible > without restarting (I've tried unloading the module). Somehow cpufreq gets > the stupid idea that the CPU is scaleable between 500 and 600MHz which has to > be the reason for those odd results. We are talking about a Mobile Athlon XP > 1600+ here, BTW (though it's reported by linux as a 1500+). If you ask me > that's a serious problem. The odd thing, however, is that it didn't happen > with the same kernel version before. Maybe it depends on some intel code to > work correct (I used to have the CPU in the kernel set to PIII, now it's > correctly at Athlon) or maybe it has something to do with the swsp patch that > I *don't* have applied to my actual kernel. HELP! > The same odd behavior(sp?) appears with clean 2.5.72 and 2.6.0-test1 kernels.