Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 Aug 2002 22:53:15 +0200 | From | Dominik Brodowski <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH][2.5.32] CPU frequency and voltage scaling (0/4) |
| |
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 01:43:08PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > > > Do these CPUs need kernel support? E.g. do udelay() calls work as > > expected? > > Crusoe CPU's do not. Great.
> But Intel CPU's _do_ need this, for example (since they change the TSC > frequency). And that's why there is some need for a cpufreq core (which manages loops_per_jiffy etc.) and the need for the cpufreq drivers (#2 and #3 in my previous mail).
> Which is why such a CPU needs to be passed in a _policy_. Which is my > whole argument. Which is #1 - the "input" to the cpufreq core. This can be seperated from the cpufreq core. So basically
"policy input" --> "frequency input" --> cpufreq core --> cpufreq driver user-space | k e r n e l - s p a c e
instead of
"policy input" --> "frequency input" --> cpufreq core --> cpufreq driver u s e r - s p a c e | k e r n e l - s p a c e
Linus, would you agree to the /proc interface as one of several frequency "input"/management options? It's good for testing, for some workloads (LART), and it's (almost) done (just needs seperating from the cpufreq core)...
Dominik - 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/
| |