Messages in this thread | | | From | "Michael S. Zick" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] CPUFREQ: Enable acpi-cpufreq driver for VIA/Centaur CPUs | Date | Tue, 9 Jun 2009 12:51:59 -0500 |
| |
On Tue June 9 2009, Michael S. Zick wrote: > On Mon June 8 2009, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 04:15:22PM -0500, Michael S. Zick wrote: > > > > > Phooey, close but no cigar - - - > > > > > > root@cb01:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq# cat scaling_available_frequencies > > > 1200000 1000000 800000 600000 400000 > > > root@cb01:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq# cat stats/time_in_state > > > 1200000 3281 > > > 1000000 120 > > > 800000 130 > > > 600000 234 > > > 400000 52980 > > > root@cb01:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq > > > > > > It loads, it appears to work, but that lowest 400Mhz has ACPI entries > > > even though this is a 600Mhz..1200Mhz chip. > > > > If the BIOS tables claim it then it's likely Windows uses it on the same > > hardware. What's the stability like with the ACPI code? > > > > Too soon to say - those where first results (about par with "it boots"). ;) > > Will be poking at this machine more today - >
Naw - e_powersaver does a better job and consistently provides nearly an order of magnitude better up-time.
Guess I'll go back to reading/auditing e_powersaver. ;)
Mike > * * * * > > I do not have a copy of any proprietary operating system to compare with > on this machine. > > You could use the search features of this forum: > http://forum.netbookuser.com/index.php > to look for windows problem reports/discussions. > > That forum was active since the machine was announced and included > members from Everex. If there where windows problems, they are > in there somewhere. > > Mike > -- > 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/ > >
| |