From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ryan Underwood Subject: Re: writing a cpufreq driver Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 10:21:44 -0500 Message-ID: <20060923152144.GA15964@dbz.icequake.net> References: <20060921184833.GC1216@dbz.icequake.net> <20060922153948.GN4945@poupinou.org> <20060922160025.GA4459@dbz.icequake.net> <20060922160514.GQ4945@poupinou.org> <20060922161149.GC4459@dbz.icequake.net> <20060923150751.GR4945@poupinou.org> Reply-To: nemesis@icequake.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060923150751.GR4945@poupinou.org> 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=gmane.org+glkc-cpufreq=gmane.org@lists.linux.org.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Bruno Ducrot Cc: Cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk, Ryan Underwood On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 05:07:52PM +0200, Bruno Ducrot wrote: > On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 11:11:49AM -0500, Ryan Underwood wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 06:05:14PM +0200, Bruno Ducrot wrote: > > > > > > I'm now sure the southbridge is throttling the processor... > > > > How would it usually do this, by repeated #SMI? > > By repeated STPCLK# I guess. IIRC i486 (and newer intel processors) had > that pin. But if it were using STPCLK, TSC would be slowed too, right? TSC just counts the clock cycles of CPU. I was thinking the method was to enter SMM and run HLT instructions or similar. That way power is saved but TSC is preserved. Unfortunately, that makes the power saving mode on this particular machine useless, since Linux already runs HLT during idle. -- Ryan Underwood,