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: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 07:01:49 +0100 Message-ID: <20051206060149.GA4722@isilmar.linta.de> References: <88056F38E9E48644A0F562A38C64FB60067F424F@scsmsx403.amr.corp.intel.com> <20051204164620.GA8422@isilmar.linta.de> <20051205110012.GA12747@poupinou.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051205110012.GA12747@poupinou.org> 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: Bruno Ducrot Cc: CPUFreq@lists.linux.org.uk, davej@redhat.com Hi, On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 12:00:12PM +0100, Bruno Ducrot wrote: > > 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? Yes, sure. However, only on the x86 I'm quite confident that the throttling state is equivalent to the idle state, and therefore doesn't offer _additional_ power savings (besides the effect discussed by Dave yesterday) if the CPU load is lower than (1 - throttling_rate), IMO. CPUFREQ_SCALING: acpi-cpufreq elanfreq powernow-k{6,7,8} speedstep-{smi,ich,centrino} longrun longhaul CPUFREQ_THROTTLING: p4-clockmod gx-suspmod The other architectures I'm not so familiar with, so this list is x86 only at the moment. Dominik