From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: About p4-clockmod breakage/removal Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 01:56:36 +0100 Message-ID: <20080514005636.GA21608@srcf.ucam.org> References: <48246C3E.7010608@ceibo.fiec.espol.edu.ec> <200805132048.00653.lenb@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mjg.x.mythic-beasts.com ([93.93.128.6]:45087 "EHLO vavatch.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757422AbYENA5T (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 May 2008 20:57:19 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200805132048.00653.lenb@kernel.org> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Len Brown Cc: cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk, Alex =?iso-8859-1?B?VmlsbGFj7a1z?= Lasso , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 08:48:00PM -0400, Len Brown wrote: > Assuming this is a laptop with a batter, > I'd certainly be interested if you could run BLTK > and measure any benefit to p4-clockmod (I've never > been able to) The most plausible benefit to p4-clockmod is its utility in throttling the CPU if it would otherwise cause the system to overheat. From that point of view, I think it's worth keeping around - especially since not all machines expose T states via ACPI. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org