From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bruno Ducrot Subject: Re: Manual PST settings for "unrecognized CPUs" Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 10:08:26 +0200 Sender: cpufreq-bounces@www.linux.org.uk Message-ID: <20040817080826.GC29560@poupinou.org> References: <39e3484804081616133c2765ce@mail.gmail.com> <20040817062634.6C2404BE94@nathan.muc.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040817062634.6C2404BE94@nathan.muc.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: Harald Milz Cc: cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk Hi (I'm back from very long vacation ;) On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 08:26:34AM +0200, Harald Milz wrote: > GoatZilla wrote: > > I saw a patch fly by a short while ago where a user added some > > settings for an unrecognized config. Is this the only way to hack in > > a PST? > > Actually there were (at least) two patches - Bruno's patch which > implemented additional /proc fs entries to send frequency settings to, and > mine which uses command line parameters for the powernow-k7 module. You can > find them in the ML archive. Internally, they do basically the same thing. > Mine is a little inferior as far as sanity checks. But It Works For Me > [TM]. > > Please be advised that you _could_ potentially fry your CPU if you use them > :-) But IMHO it's quite unlikely. > > What these patches can't do is set the VID on most (?) desktop boards > because of a lack of hardware support. But you should be able to lower the > FID to a certain extent, and the power consumption is linearly proportional > to the frequency, after all. Mine is a little bit too old btw, and I guess yours should be used instead for now.. Cheers, -- Bruno Ducrot -- Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? -- Don't know. Don't care.