Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 17 May 2004 21:37:11 +0200 | From | "Prakash K. Cheemplavam" <> | Subject | Re: IO-APIC on nforce2 [PATCH] + [PATCH] for nmi_debug=1 + [PATCH] for idle=C1halt, 2.6.5 |
| |
Craig Bradney wrote: > On Mon, 2004-05-17 at 17:26, Prakash K. Cheemplavam wrote: > >>Hi all, >> >>I just made an interesting finding and would like to have comments from >>NVidia: >> >>Chip Current Value New Value >>C17 1F0FFF01 1F01FF01 >>C18D 9F0FFF01 9F01FF01 >> >>In fact I have the newer chip revision (lspci says c1), but due to a >>post at Abit Forums I tried to use the value for the older revision on >>my board, and guess what: I never had such low idle temps! I am >>currently even using nvidia binary graphics driver and usually I would >>be having around 49-51°C idle temp, but now it is around 45°C, and it >>was not the first boot (then the mobo usually shows 5°C less). Instead >>the temp steadily fell from >50°C to 45°C. >> >>(esp @nvidia:) Is there anything evil using the old chip's value for the >>new chip? So far I haven't noticed any bad thing about it. Perhaps some >>daring nforce2 user with the new revision should try as well. >> > > > Isnt it the case that that change is the one that brings about > stability? Was indicated before to be the main causing c1halt crashes.
Nope, I am changing the 9F to 1F. The "stability byte" was changing the 0F to 01. I am no using 1F01FF01 instead of 9F01FF01. I guess I wasn't clear enough.
Prakash - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |