Re: Dothan VID# identification script (was Re: [ACPI] Speedstep-centrino problems)

[Rich Townsend <rhdt@bartol.udel.edu>]

Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 06:28:27PM -0500, Rich Townsend wrote:
> 
>>Of course, we can't guarantee that there will always be a match; or that 
>>there won't be duplicate matches. Also, this approach relies on having 
>>ACPI P-states, to build up the frequency/voltage table. However, it 
>>still seems to me to be a pretty robust way of determining the VID# in a 
>>system, and one that could be incorporated into speedstep-centrino. 
>>Dominik, what do you think?
> 
> 
> It indeed seems somewhat robust to me, I'd like to get Venkatesh's input on
> this, though. "Transient voltages" may pose a problem, though...

Gak, hadn't thought of that.

> 
> I wouldn't favor for inclusion into speedstep-centrino, though -- one
> cpufreq driver requiring at first one other to run, then to unload the other
> with speedstep-centrino taking over... no, that doesn't _feel_ right. I
> wouldn't vote against including the Dothan tables but only using them if the
> user passes a parameter "vid=[a-f]", though.

I concurr. Unless a subset of acpi_cpufreq could be implemented within 
speedstep-centrino without nasty hackery, you end up with an unpleasant 
dependency problem. I'll look into adding the vid= option over the 
Dothan tables patch.

cheers,

Rich