From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dmitry Torokhov Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove p4_clockmode driver Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 00:01:18 -0400 Message-ID: <20080522040118.GA28737@anvil.corenet.prv> References: <1209844030.13290.5.camel@linux-2bdv.site> <20080511161934.GI15445@codemonkey.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080511161934.GI15445@codemonkey.org.uk> 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 To: Dave Jones Cc: cpufreq , mzahor@dtech.sk, Dominik Brodowski Hi Dave, On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 12:19:34PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > On Sat, May 03, 2008 at 09:47:10PM +0200, Thomas Renninger wrote: > > Remove p4_clockmode driver > > > > The driver is doing throttling which is supposed to be done through another > > ACPI interface. If both interfaces are used, the machine may get very slow. > > Remove this driver which should never be used. > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Renninger > > I agree this is long overdue being taken out back and shot. > > Some thoughts though: > > * Should we deprecate this for a release first ? > I'm torn over this, because I think no matter how long we do this for, > we're going to get people who claim to be surprised. > Though given this driver is 99% useless, perhaps just ripping it out > is for the best. > > * Matthew Garrett mentioned something interesting this morning.. > > mjg59 | davej: On machines that don't support acpi throttling, I was under the impression that there was supposed to be a hook between the thermal code and cpufreq > mjg59 | Which would then let p4-clockmod be kicked even if it's below the threshold at which the CPU would throttle itself > davej | having that code expose T states rather than pretend to be P states is probably for the best. > mjg59 | Yeah, true > > So whilst killing this off is probably the right thing to do, there may be > some value in parts of it living on in the ACPI code ? > > I'll queue up this removal patch for linux-next, and we'll see if anyone screams. > (I doubt it, given the amount of testing that gets right now. It'll probably > not really get noticed until after it's in a Linus sanctioned release) > AAAAAAA! I am using p4_clockmod in attempt to keep my old P4-based box a bit cooler. It does not support anything besides C0 (no P-states, no throttling) so acpi-based driver does not work. -- Dmitry