From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262598AbUBZB3P (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:29:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262595AbUBZB3P (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:29:15 -0500 Received: from [200.195.196.14] ([200.195.196.14]:942 "EHLO mail.ondacorp.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262598AbUBZB3K (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:29:10 -0500 Message-ID: <403D4BD3.7050703@arenanetwork.com.br> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 01:28:51 +0000 From: dual_bereta_r0x Organization: ArenaNetwork Lan House & Cyber User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (X11/20040208) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dominik Brodowski Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk Subject: Re: 2.6.2: P4 ClockMod speed References: <20040216213435.GA9680@dominikbrodowski.de> <40313AA9.1060906@arenanetwork.com.br> <20040217090939.GA9935@dominikbrodowski.de> In-Reply-To: <20040217090939.GA9935@dominikbrodowski.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > That's not the point: some hardware (e.g. ARM) needs different memory > settings and different settings of the LCD controller for different > CPU frequencies, as the Front Side Bus of the CPU is closely related > to the CPU frequency. On x86, all cpufreq techniques I've > seen so far do not modify the FSB [*], so memory settings etc. do not need > to be modified. > > Dominik > > [*] or scaling the FSB didn't work... In x86 world, this info is wrong. The *multiplier* is locked inside processor (Intel P4) or by some "dips" on cpu core (AMD Athlon XP) -- unless you have such as "enginering samples", with didn't have this lock --, but front-side-bus is changeable via MoBo BIOS. Also, if you just add 0.5v in your CPU you can made it running faster than designed. The same applies to memory. That's why we bought DDR533 mems to run in DDR400 hardwares. We increase FSB and our mems could run with this new FSB. Again, showing *max* from manufacturer instead of *actual* speed is wrong. Even if the machine has or not capabilities to run with more/less power than it has designed for, is not up to the OS decide it. The OS should run or not, but the user has chosen this path; it must only tell him what's *really* happening. "Your actual clock differs from manufacturer. Its *your* fault if any component fail or malfunctions/bugs arrives because of this." -- dual_bereta_r0x -- Alexandre Hautequest ArenaNetwork Lan House & Cyber -- www.arenanetwork.com.br