From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bruno Ducrot Subject: Re: PowerOP 2/3: Intel Centrino support Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:58:48 +0200 Message-ID: <20050810125848.GM852@poupinou.org> References: <20050809025419.GC25064@slurryseal.ddns.mvista.com> <20050810100133.GA1945@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050810100133.GA1945@elf.ucw.cz> 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@lists.linux.org.uk To: Pavel Machek Cc: cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@lists.osdl.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 12:01:33PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > Minimal PowerOP support for Intel Enhanced Speedstep "Centrino" > > notebooks. These systems run at an operating point comprised of a cpu > > frequency and a core voltage. The voltage could be set from the values > > recommended in the datasheets if left unspecified (-1) in the operating > > point, as cpufreq does. > > Eh? I thought these are handled okay by cpufreq already? What is > advantage of this over cpufreq? ATM I'm wondering what are the pro for those patches wrt current cpufreq infrastructure (especially cpufreq's notion of notifiers). I still don't find a good one but I'm surely missing something obvious. -- Bruno Ducrot -- Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? -- Don't know. Don't care.