On Tuesday 13 May 2008, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 08:48:00PM -0400, Len Brown wrote: > > > Assuming this is a laptop with a batter, > > I'd certainly be interested if you could run BLTK > > and measure any benefit to p4-clockmod (I've never > > been able to) > > The most plausible benefit to p4-clockmod is its utility in throttling > the CPU if it would otherwise cause the system to overheat. From that > point of view, I think it's worth keeping around - especially since not > all machines expose T states via ACPI. Matthew, I'm delighted in your efforts to make Linux better, I really am. So I'm sorry that for the 3rd message in a row I have to completely disagree with you. cpufreq is not designed to manage thermals, and putting p4_clockmod underneath it to manage thermals is a mistake. There is already a well known thermal throttling interface available via ACPI and it does not need p4_clockmod to run. Passive trip points work automatically even without cpufreq being present. If they do not, then we need to fix them. p4-clockmod should have been removed from the tree over a year ago. -Len -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
