From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Jones Subject: Re: Status of X86_P4_CLOCKMOD? Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:09:16 -0500 Message-ID: <20060228200916.GA326@redhat.com> References: <20060214152218.GI10701@stusta.de> <20060222024438.GI20204@MAIL.13thfloor.at> <20060222031001.GC4661@stusta.de> <200602212220.05642.dtor_core@ameritech.net> <20060223195937.GA5087@stusta.de> <20060223204110.GE6213@redhat.com> <20060228194628.GP4650@waste.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060228194628.GP4650@waste.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Matt Mackall Cc: Adrian Bunk , Dmitry Torokhov , davej@codemonkey.org.uk, Zwane Mwaikambo , Samuel Masham , Jan Engelhardt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk, ak@suse.de On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 01:46:29PM -0600, Matt Mackall wrote: > On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 03:41:10PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 08:59:37PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > > > > > config X86_P4_CLOCKMOD > > > > > > depends on EMBEDDED > > > > > > > > > > This one is an x86_64 only issue, and yes, it's wrong. > > > > > > > > That's for P4, not X86_64... And since P4 clock modulation does not provide > > > > almost any energy savings it was "hidden" under embedded. > > > > > > But the EMBEDDED dependency is only on x86_64: > > > > > > arch/i386/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/Kconfig: > > > config X86_P4_CLOCKMOD > > > tristate "Intel Pentium 4 clock modulation" > > > select CPU_FREQ_TABLE > > > help > > > > > > arch/x86_64/kernel/cpufreq/Kconfig: > > > config X86_P4_CLOCKMOD > > > tristate "Intel Pentium 4 clock modulation" > > > depends on EMBEDDED > > > help > > > > > > 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. > > This is perplexing. Less heat equals less power usage according to the > laws of thermodynamics. you end up taking longer to do the same amount of work, so you end up using the same overall power. Dave