From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932686Ab0E0Cmt (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 May 2010 22:42:49 -0400 Received: from vms173003pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.3]:52930 "EHLO vms173003pub.verizon.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932454Ab0E0Cmr (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 May 2010 22:42:47 -0400 From: Len Brown To: x86@kernel.org, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: idle-test patches queued for upstream Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 22:42:23 -0400 Message-id: <1274928151-30919-1-git-send-email-lenb@kernel.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.7.1.231.gd0b16 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Please look over and test this patch set. (If you test linux-next, you already have it) There are a few simple patches, leading up to a new intel_idle driver. Note that you can get the patch series as a single patch here: http://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/lenb/idle/patches/2.6.34/idle-test-2.6.34.diff.gz or pull from this git branch git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lenb/linux-idle-2.6.git idle-test Both are vs 2.6.34. Why is it good to have a native intel_idle driver? Basically, we think we can do better than ACPI. Indeed, on my (production level commerically available) Nehalem desktop the ACPI tables are broken and an ACPI OS idles at 100W. With this driver the box idles at 85W. Thanks, -Len