[lkml]   [2002]   [Aug]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [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.

> 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)...

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.065 / U:1.240 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site