From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bruno Ducrot Subject: Re: My latest powernow-k8.c Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 13:41:22 +0100 Sender: cpufreq-bounces@www.linux.org.uk Message-ID: <20040319124122.GG28592@poupinou.org> References: <99F2150714F93F448942F9A9F112634C1163C59A@txexmtae.amd.com> <20040319112429.GB5726@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040319112429.GB5726@elf.ucw.cz> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: cpufreq-bounces+glkc-cpufreq=gmane.org@www.linux.org.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Pavel Machek Cc: linux@dominikbrodowski.de, Cpufreq mailing list On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 12:24:29PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > Attached are my latest .c and .h ... I am sending the whole files rather than patches, as a check that I did not miss a patch that you wanted. Mail here has been a little less reliable that one might wish for. > > > > I added back in the cpu number in the dprintks to aid MP debugging. I fixed a PSB problem where the battery limits were getting lost. And, I tweaked the smp processor init stuff as discussed in emails. > > > > I am still thinking about the FIXME where Dominik asked for more validity checking. So, that is still FIXME. > > Huh, now this is strange: > > root@amd:~# echo "0%88%88%powersave" > /proc/cpufreq > root@amd:~# cat /proc/cpufreq > minimum CPU frequency - maximum CPU frequency - policy > CPU 0 1584000 kHz ( 88 %) - 1600000 kHz ( 88 %) - powersave > root@amd:~# > 2.4 or 2.6 ? -- Bruno Ducrot -- Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? -- Don't know. Don't care.