Re: Pentium III (Coppermine) cpufreq support

[Ducrot Bruno <ducrot@poupinou.org>]

On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 10:31:05AM +0100, aeriksson@fastmail.fm wrote:
> 
> > > Now reading the comment just before these lines, it's
> > > apparent that this is not the way things are supposed to work.
> > 
> > Well, that the only 'official' info we got from Intel in
> > order to detect a speedstep capable processor in earlier
> > PIII coppermine...  But they seems to be wrong (and actually
> > some system do have an early speedstep-capable PIII coppermine
> > that do not pass this check).
> > 
> Sounds promising.
> 
> > > Question:
> > > Is there any chance that tricking the code into accepting 
> > > the cpu as speedstep-capable, would made the code appear to
> > > work when observing the behavior from outside but actually
> > > do no good to the metal? I don't have the hardware here to 
> > > check if the box actually does consume less power when in
> > > low performance mode.
> > 
> > If you allow a non-speedstep capable processor, and if
> > you use the speedstep-ich driver, this will likely
> > freeze the system no matter what.
> > 
> -ich. ? Do you mean -smi? That's the one I use...

And?  This code is shared with *all* speedstep drivers.

> Anyway, I guess I can conclude that i do have a speedstep capable box.
> If we can get feedback from others (e.g. visyz) indicating that this
> test may need to be relaxed/fixed/whatever a bit for different boxes,
> would a CONFIG_CPUFREQ_ANCIENT_SPEEDSTEP patch & option which
> captures that be adopted?

Make sense, but I know that such system already exist...

-- 
Ducrot Bruno

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