From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bruno Ducrot Subject: Re: static freq table support for Pentium M Dothan Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 11:44:22 +0200 Sender: cpufreq-bounces@www.linux.org.uk Message-ID: <20040818094422.GD29560@poupinou.org> References: <412280F0.8090900@giesskaennchen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <412280F0.8090900@giesskaennchen.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: Oliver Antwerpen Cc: cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk Hi, On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 10:04:32PM +0000, Oliver Antwerpen wrote: > I don't really know what to do. Do I have any advantages using > speedstep-centrino instead of acpi? You may want BOTH actually. acpi for a more aware power saving idle loop (you can gather some statistics from /proc/acpi/processor/*/power) and you may want speedstep-centrino in order to lower voltage (and as a consequence the frequency of the processor). You should'nt use the acpi performance stuff because it's achieve the exact same thing than the speedstep-centrino, but via a call to the BIOS instead to talk directly to the hardware (in this case, via known MSRs). Cheers, -- Bruno Ducrot -- Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? -- Don't know. Don't care.