On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 10:37:05 +0100 Thomas Renninger <trenn@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tuesday 03 February 2009 00:04:15 Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:03:47 -0600 > > > > Mark Langsdorf <mark.langsdorf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Subject: [PATCH] Determine latency from ACPI > > > > Nobody who reads this title will have a clue which subsystem the patch > > affects. Please always create patch titles of the form: > > > > subsystem-identifer: what-i-changed > > > > > At this time, the PowerNow! driver for K8 uses an experimentally > > > derived formula to calculate transition latency. The value it > > > provides is orders of magnitude too large on modern systems. > > > This patch replaces the formula with ACPI _PSS latency values > > > for more accuracy and better performance. > > > > > > I've tested it on two 2nd generation Opteron systems, a 3rd > > > generation Operton system, and a Turion X2 without seeing any > > > stability problems. > > > > There are a tremendous number of changes to this file in linux-next. > > It's easy to make the patch apply, but my confidence that the result > > will actually work is insufficiently high. > I sent a patch set, this one included to Dave some days ago. > These were based on his latest cpufreq tree and should have latest > changes adjusted. > Unfortunately without getting a response yet (I messed up the cpufreq > mail list address and bombed him down sending the series three times > with guilt --patchbomb, so this could have ended in the trash folder :( ). > Shall I resend :) ? When in doubt, resend. Adding more cc's helps ;) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
