Re: [PATCH][DOCUMENTATION BUGFIX] latency in micro-, not nanoseconds

[Ducrot Bruno <ducrot@poupinou.org>]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 02:17:54PM +0000, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 12:01:34PM +0100, Ducrot Bruno wrote:
>  > On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 10:45:02PM +0000, Dave Jones wrote:
>  > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 07:54:17PM +0100, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
>  > >  > BTW, it's not enough for powernow-k7 to divide the BIOS-known latency by 50.
>  > >  > This latency for one VID and one FID transition needs to be multiplied by
>  > >  > the number of p-states minus 1, as that's the actual maximum latency due to
>  > >  > the "one step up/down only" loop, IIRC.
>  > > 
>  > > Yoinks, I thought I had merged that patch (so did you judging from
>  > > that last sentence), but it fell through the cracks somehow.
>  > > I'll see if I can dig it out if I still have it.
>  > > 
>  > > 		Dave
>  > > 
>  > 
>  > I expected that correcting latency and fixing the change_[FV]ID()
>  > will make any patch doing 'one step up/down only' for K7 to be rejected?
> 
> Worse yet, I can't put my finger on the mail that had the patch.
> I'll dig some more, but I'm wondering if this was lost in the
> window between a backup and my IBM deskstars dieing a few months back.
> 

Well, I should have one or two patch(s) for, if really needed,
but what I wanted to point is that now 'latency' is fixed,
and change_VID() is debugged, my brain-damaged try-to-hang

http://www.poupinou.org/cpufreq/test_all_freqs.c

don't want to crash the laptop now.

Cheers,

-- 
Ducrot Bruno

--  Which is worse:  ignorance or apathy?
--  Don't know.  Don't care.