Messages in this thread | | | From | "Michael S. Zick" <> | Subject | Re: e_powersaver / underclocking (was Re: Linux 2.6.30-rc8 [also: VIA Support]) | Date | Sat, 6 Jun 2009 08:46:34 -0500 |
| |
On Sat June 6 2009, Harald Welte wrote: > On Sat, Jun 06, 2009 at 07:17:44AM -0500, Michael S. Zick wrote: > > > I can respond to that point now; VIA Tech has answered some of my questions - > > > > The mainstream kernel, e_powersaver, is *under-clocking* my machine - > > > > The cpuid instruction provides the minimum and maximum GSF values > > (Guaranteed Stable Frequency) for that processor mask run - > > Passing that on as the lower and upper limits to e_powersaver should > > stop that problem. Will be testing this RSN. > > It's really surprising to me that none of this seems to be handled correct so > far, I'll talk to Centaur and try to find out how we could have ended up in > this situation. >
Ah, but we are talking here of the *second* NetBook ever produced. If one is to believe the dmidecode output - it is using the VIA demo board BIOS.
I bet the demo board BIOS is intended to demo the features of the product - not the correctness or completeness of the ACPI support. ;)
If I where shipping demo boards - they would be demonstrating **my** product's features. Maybe I am just projecting what I would do.
> My assumption is that e_powersavre is no longer supposd to do any of those > low-level bits - rather the ACPI code is expected to get it right, hiding the > details from the OS. But in this case, there needs to be some run-time detection > whether the ACPI cpufreq should be used, or e_powersaver. And I don't see any > of that right now. >
I can keep my eyes open for a way to do that - First, I want to get the machine running **with-in** the specs it can provide. The one I have is running at 2/3rds of the reported *minimum* clockspeed. I must have gotten a high quality "mask/process run" for it to be running at all.
> Also note that now with OLPC XO1.5 going for the C7-M (on a VX855 chipset, > though), many of those issues should soon receive much more attention - > especially on the power management front. And as you know, they don't use any > legacy BIOS... >
I'll keep my eyes open on that subject also when looking at the e_powersaver code - The OLPC project will probably be requesting chip runs that **do** run at the minimums the design is capable of and it will **have to** be stable for OLPC.
Mike > Regards,
| |