From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bruno Ducrot Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.14] cpufreq: don't suggest speedstep-centrino for Dothan-based Celeron-M processors Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 12:00:12 +0100 Message-ID: <20051205110012.GA12747@poupinou.org> References: <88056F38E9E48644A0F562A38C64FB60067F424F@scsmsx403.amr.corp.intel.com> <20051204164620.GA8422@isilmar.linta.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051204164620.GA8422@isilmar.linta.de> 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=m.gmane.org+glkc-cpufreq=m.gmane.org@lists.linux.org.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" , CPUFreq@lists.linux.org.uk, davej@redhat.com On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 05:46:20PM +0100, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > 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) Yes, that's what I had in mind. But maybe we could at first make the distinction before being able to load more than one driver? > > However, as I'm too busy at the moment to tackle this issue, it'd be great > if someone else could handle this one ;) -- Bruno Ducrot -- Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? -- Don't know. Don't care.