On Sun, 2009-03-08 at 08:01 +0100, Thomas Renninger wrote: > On Sunday 08 March 2009 02:06:33 am Maciej Piechotka wrote: > > On Sat, 2009-03-07 at 15:00 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 12:09:29PM +0100, Maciej Piechotka wrote: > > > > # cat /proc/acpi/thermal_zone/THM0/trip_points > > > > critical (S5): 99 C > > > > passive: 95 C: tc1=5 tc2=4 tsp=600 devices= CPU > > > > > > > > The problem is that it seems that the system halts at about 95 C - in > > > > moment when cooling should be applied. This might be an ACPI/ibm_acpi > > > > bug. > > > > > > Halts as in shuts down, or halts as in stops running? The R51e seems to > > > have the 32/64-bit ACPI address issue - can you try booting with > > > acpi=rsdt as a kernel argument and see whether it behaves any better? > > > > Somehow. It keeps system at 70-80 C but on 2.6.29 it freezes the > > computer when I log into Gnome (it seems that gdm is not enought and it > > occures after few minutes) - i.e. I cannot move pointer, change VT nor > > even ping the system (I use in-kernel radeon driver and Radeon Xpress > > 200M card RC410). > > Hmm, I expect no PowerPlay things are implemented in the in-kernel radeon > implementation yet? > fglrx and aticonfig --list-powerstates and aticonfig --set-powerstate X > could help a lot. > This could at least explain the high temperature rates. If it might help. GPU temperature is lower then CPU. However it prevents cooling as checked with rovclock. However AFAIR change 300 -> 50 is not sufficient. > Like that you could find out how much could be saved by graphics power > savings. > Ok. I'll check. > > Hm, but all this has nothing to do with cpufreq which a Celeron is not capable > of. > Should I move and rename the bug? Where should it go (ACPI - Power-Other? Power Management - Other?) Regards
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
