From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751639AbWFVSrF (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jun 2006 14:47:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751876AbWFVSrE (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jun 2006 14:47:04 -0400 Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:59098 "EHLO mail.goop.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751639AbWFVSrD (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jun 2006 14:47:03 -0400 Message-ID: <449AE5B3.8050609@goop.org> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 11:47:15 -0700 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060613) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eduard-Gabriel Munteanu CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk Subject: Re: CPUFreq ability to overclock References: <449B0DC0.8070203@aladin.ro> In-Reply-To: <449B0DC0.8070203@aladin.ro> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Eduard-Gabriel Munteanu wrote: > I've seen a comment about scaling voltages in cpufreq.c, but it seems > there is no actual support for that. Cpufreq operates in terms of "operating points" which are voltage/frequency pairs, rather than just voltages. All the CPU drivers which support it have a voltage corresponding to each frequency to make an operating point. J