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 10:15:03 +0100 Message-ID: <20080514091503.GA28678@srcf.ucam.org> References: <48246C3E.7010608@ceibo.fiec.espol.edu.ec> <200805132048.00653.lenb@kernel.org> <20080514005636.GA21608@srcf.ucam.org> <200805132335.33118.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]:57470 "EHLO vavatch.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754777AbYENJeI (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 May 2008 05:34:08 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200805132335.33118.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 11:35:32PM -0400, Len Brown wrote: > cpufreq is not designed to manage thermals, and putting p4_clockmod > underneath it to manage thermals is a mistake. Check processor_thermal.c. It explicitly interfaces with cpufreq in order to perform P state management. > There is already a well known thermal throttling interface > available via ACPI and it does not need p4_clockmod to run. > Passive trip points work automatically even without cpufreq being present. > If they do not, then we need to fix them. You're assuming that the throttling interface is always exposed via ACPI. I've seen machines where this isn't the case. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org