From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Rafa=B3_Bilski?= Subject: Re: cpufreq longhaul locks up Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 12:25:45 +0200 Message-ID: <463DAD29.20004@interia.pl> References: <200705042320.41278.dj@david-web.co.uk> <463C18C4.7030304@interia.pl> <5699f8f00705050144s5c00a455s8f7dba9258d83986@mail.gmail.com> <463CC380.3060603@interia.pl> <463CE1FB.4050305@interia.pl> <463D63D8.8010901@interia.pl> <463D9E8E.8040500@interia.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-9" To: Jan Engelhardt Cc: Wander Winkelhorst , David Johnson , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk > Nevermind, it does not look like it gets any cooler at lower frequenc= ies, > so it's a nobrainer to run it at the default 733. Well. You have very good CPU - 4,4W typical and 6,0W is a factory maxim= um. My is eating 6,78W while *sleeping* at 1GHz or about 5W while *sleeping= * at=20 533MHz. > Jan Rafa=B3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wicie, rozumicie.... Zobacz >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1a74