From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove p4_clockmode driver Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 12:19:34 -0400 Message-ID: <20080511161934.GI15445@codemonkey.org.uk> References: <1209844030.13290.5.camel@linux-2bdv.site> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1209844030.13290.5.camel@linux-2bdv.site> 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 To: Thomas Renninger Cc: cpufreq , mzahor@dtech.sk, Dominik Brodowski On Sat, May 03, 2008 at 09:47:10PM +0200, Thomas Renninger wrote: > Remove p4_clockmode driver > > The driver is doing throttling which is supposed to be done through another > ACPI interface. If both interfaces are used, the machine may get very slow. > Remove this driver which should never be used. > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Renninger I agree this is long overdue being taken out back and shot. Some thoughts though: * Should we deprecate this for a release first ? I'm torn over this, because I think no matter how long we do this for, we're going to get people who claim to be surprised. Though given this driver is 99% useless, perhaps just ripping it out is for the best. * Matthew Garrett mentioned something interesting this morning.. mjg59 | davej: On machines that don't support acpi throttling, I was under the impression that there was supposed to be a hook between the thermal code and cpufreq mjg59 | Which would then let p4-clockmod be kicked even if it's below the threshold at which the CPU would throttle itself davej | having that code expose T states rather than pretend to be P states is probably for the best. mjg59 | Yeah, true So whilst killing this off is probably the right thing to do, there may be some value in parts of it living on in the ACPI code ? I'll queue up this removal patch for linux-next, and we'll see if anyone screams. (I doubt it, given the amount of testing that gets right now. It'll probably not really get noticed until after it's in a Linus sanctioned release) Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk