https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16072 --- Comment #16 from Robert Bradbury <robert.bradbury@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-10-22 21:48:19 --- On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:02 AM, <bugzilla-daemon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote: > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16072 > > --- Comment #2 from Markos Chandras <hwoarang@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-06-25 > 09:01:42 --- > Thanks for the quick tip, but I have found multiple references over the > inet, > complaining about broken support on this kinda of CPU. Is it possible that > all > of them had a broken bios? Initially, I assumed that this cpu is quite new > and > kernels developers didn't have time to add support for it > Markos, the CPU is very old (~5+ years). There are still CPU/BIOS combinations wch may be coming out which do not properly support the ACPI power saving options [1] -- and thus one must fall back on the old p4-clockmod power saving features. Which did indead work and should not be effectively disabled as has been the case with more recent releases of Linux. Please feel free to contact me for the specific modiification in p4-clockmod.c which should be removed in order to provide the normal power saving features. Best, Robert 1. It is a very complex situation in terms of what the CPUs are capable of and what the BIOS is capable of (in terms of managing power conservation). In terms of my current read of the Linux code these are in two separate realms from a development standpoint. In an ideal world everything would be going through ACPI and it would manage power use. In reality that world does not exist and one should be able to deal with it. Thus problems with p4-clockmod.c. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. -- 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
