On 18 June 2013 19:14, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:26:16 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:12:13 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: >> > On 17 June 2013 19:21, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> Well, that's why on x86 turbo is controlled by hardware that takes >> care of keeping things within the chip's thermal limits. > > And this is the reason why I don't want to overly change acpi-cpufreq.c > code. :-) We need to keep both hardware/software boost features at the same place in core, they may behave differently though. That's why I wanted you to do that. > I think that thermal subsystem shall be the second option to disable SW > boosting. > > The main control shall be done inside the cpufreq core. The idea to > disable boost when more than one core is active is rational. But then, it might not be enough. A single core can make your SoC very hot. -- 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
