From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Piel Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 updated] Measure transition latency at driver initialization Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 00:43:11 +0100 Message-ID: <4390DC0F.8050507@tremplin-utc.net> References: <11333087111183-git-send-email-malattia@linux.it> <438D9111.2000306@tremplin-utc.net> <20051130223038.GD3620@inferi.kami.home> <438E38B3.3080009@tremplin-utc.net> <20051201193147.GB4432@inferi.kami.home> <438F659B.3070103@tremplin-utc.net> <20051201233411.GA5563@inferi.kami.home> <439031F0.2090607@lifl.fr> <4792.83.103.117.254.1133530475.squirrel@picard.linux.it> <20051202205941.GE3598@inferi.kami.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20051202205941.GE3598@inferi.kami.home> 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="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed" To: Mattia Dongili Cc: CPUFreq Mailing List , Dominik Brodowski , davej@redhat.com 02.12.2005 21:59, Mattia Dongili wrote/a =C3=A9crit: > here it is: > the attached patch introduces runtime latency measurement for ICH[234] > based chipsets instead of using CPUFREQ_ETERNAL. It includes > some sanity checks in case the measured value is out of range and > assigns a safe value of 500uSec that should still be enough on > problematics chipsets (current testing report values ~200uSec). The > measurement is currently done in speedstep_get_freqs in order to avoid > further unnecessary transitions and in the hope it'll come handy for SMI > also. It looks fine for me :-) Dave, Venki, do you have any objections? Please=20 apply those two patchs to finally get over the transition latency=20 problem on speedstep-ich. cheers, Eric