From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH][DOCUMENTATION BUGFIX] latency in micro-, not nanoseconds Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 22:45:02 +0000 Sender: cpufreq-bounces+glkc-cpufreq=gmane.org@www.linux.org.uk Message-ID: <20031111224501.GA30698@redhat.com> References: <20031104160816.GA9187@brodo.de> <20031110163209.GP10144@redhat.com> <20031110171533.GS21970@poupinou.org> <20031104160816.GA9187@brodo.de> <20031110163209.GP10144@redhat.com> <20031110171533.GS21970@poupinou.org> <20031110172246.GT10144@redhat.com> <20031110205029.GA7149@brodo.de> <20031110211654.GA10144@redhat.com> <20031111185417.GB4825@brodo.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031111185417.GB4825@brodo.de> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: cpufreq-bounces+glkc-cpufreq=gmane.org@www.linux.org.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Dominik Brodowski Cc: Ducrot Bruno , cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 07:54:17PM +0100, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > BTW, it's not enough for powernow-k7 to divide the BIOS-known latency by 50. > This latency for one VID and one FID transition needs to be multiplied by > the number of p-states minus 1, as that's the actual maximum latency due to > the "one step up/down only" loop, IIRC. Yoinks, I thought I had merged that patch (so did you judging from that last sentence), but it fell through the cracks somehow. I'll see if I can dig it out if I still have it. Dave