From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ducrot Bruno Subject: Re: p4-clockmod doesn't seem to allow the highest possible speed Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:05:59 +0100 Sender: cpufreq-bounces@www.linux.org.uk Message-ID: <20040111180559.GD14031@poupinou.org> References: <20040110101534.GA10003@dominikbrodowski.de> <20040110110800.GA8294@grep.be> <20040110131824.GA5010@dominikbrodowski.de> <20040110152145.GA10160@grep.be> <20040110154110.GA8735@dominikbrodowski.de> <20040110163212.GD10531@grep.be> <20040110185308.GZ14031@poupinou.org> <20040110193526.GM10531@grep.be> <20040111154825.GA14031@poupinou.org> <20040111173003.GA5485@dominikbrodowski.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040111173003.GA5485@dominikbrodowski.de> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: cpufreq-bounces@www.linux.org.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Wouter Verhelst , cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 06:30:03PM +0100, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 04:48:25PM +0100, Ducrot Bruno wrote: > > (but that do > > not matter, since you should use p4-clockmod instead of ACPI T-states > > anyway). > > What are the advantages of p4-clockmod in favour of ACPI T-states? > 1- Latency (MSR access instead of ISA IO space). 2- Safety (p4-clockmod do not rely on external circuitry, or hw bugs from the southbridge). 3- even though I don't think p4-clockmod do not support this, it is possible to throttle the CPU in case of overheating issue, without need to do that in software. 4- a little more power efficient, since generating a signal cost power (but I don't think that you gain so much). -- Ducrot Bruno -- Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? -- Don't know. Don't care.