From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dominik Brodowski Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.14] cpufreq: don't suggest speedstep-centrino for Dothan-based Celeron-M processors Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 17:46:20 +0100 Message-ID: <20051204164620.GA8422@isilmar.linta.de> References: <88056F38E9E48644A0F562A38C64FB60067F424F@scsmsx403.amr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <88056F38E9E48644A0F562A38C64FB60067F424F@scsmsx403.amr.corp.intel.com> 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=gmane.org+glkc-cpufreq=gmane.org@lists.linux.org.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" Cc: CPUFreq@lists.linux.org.uk, Bruno Ducrot , davej@redhat.com Hi, On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 01:19:27PM -0800, Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote: > I understand acpi_throttle and processor_thermal doing it. But, > p4-clockmod, meant for cooling should actual run like acpi_throttle and > get triggered more like throttle rather than powersaving frequency > drivers. Right? > Also, if throttling information is not there in ACPI, even then P4 > clockmod can potentially be used as a replacement for acpi_throttle and > coexist with say acpi-cpufreq. Yes, exactly. In my TODO list for cpufreq, I still have this entry: - [core] evaluate use of > 1 drivers at one time (CPUFREQ_THROTTLING, CPUFREQ_SCALING) However, as I'm too busy at the moment to tackle this issue, it'd be great if someone else could handle this one ;) Thanks, Dominik