From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bruno Ducrot Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.14] cpufreq: don't suggest speedstep-centrino for Dothan-based Celeron-M processors Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 16:04:14 +0100 Message-ID: <20051202150414.GF24254@poupinou.org> References: <88056F38E9E48644A0F562A38C64FB60067F3B26@scsmsx403.amr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <88056F38E9E48644A0F562A38C64FB60067F3B26@scsmsx403.amr.corp.intel.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: cpufreq-bounces@lists.linux.org.uk Errors-To: cpufreq-bounces+glkc-cpufreq=m.gmane.org+glkc-cpufreq=m.gmane.org@lists.linux.org.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" Cc: CPUFreq@lists.linux.org.uk, davej@redhat.com, Dominik Brodowski On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 06:26:52AM -0800, Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote: > > I think from user perspectibe, P4-clockmod is most confusing driver > ever. P4-clockmod will only do the duty-cycle based throttling and will > not save any significant power. In fact, CPU may end up consuming more > power than without it for a constant amount of unit-work (Dominik has > patiently explained it quite a few times on this list). It will only > help in thermal conditions and ACPI throttling driver should handle that > anyway. Given this: I vote for removing p4-clockmod altogether from > cpufreq drivers. Dave, Dominik: do you agree? -1 There is an infrastructure in order to cool the processor with cpufreq. Doing what you propose disallow people with such configurations to use ACPI passive cooling. I propose instead that we use some sort of flags such that only cpufreq driver which are able to scale voltages, or knowns to ofer good power savings, use the policy/governor stuff. -- Bruno Ducrot -- Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? -- Don't know. Don't care.