From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adrian Bunk Subject: Re: Status of X86_P4_CLOCKMOD? Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:53:26 +0100 Message-ID: <20060225125326.GJ3674@stusta.de> References: <20060214152218.GI10701@stusta.de> <20060223204110.GE6213@redhat.com> <20060225015722.GC8132@linuxtv.org> <200602250527.03493.ak@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200602250527.03493.ak@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Andi Kleen Cc: Johannes Stezenbach , Dave Jones , Dmitry Torokhov , davej@codemonkey.org.uk, Zwane Mwaikambo , Samuel Masham , Jan Engelhardt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 05:27:01AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Saturday 25 February 2006 02:57, Johannes Stezenbach wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2006, Dave Jones wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 08:59:37PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > And if the option is mostly useless, what is it good for? > > > > > > It's sometimes useful in cases where the target CPU doesn't have any better > > > option (Speedstep/Powernow). The big misconception is that it > > > somehow saves power & increases battery life. Not so. > > > All it does is 'not do work so often'. The upside of this is > > > that in some situations, we generate less heat this way. > > > > Doesn't less heat imply less power consumption? > > Not in this case no. >... Sorry for the dumb question, but how could this work physically? If a computer produces less heat with the same power consumption, what happens with the other energy? > -Andi cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed