On 02/06/2012 11:31 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 08:17:11AM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote: >> +#define reduction_pctg(cpu) \ >> + per_cpu(cpufreq_thermal_reduction_pctg, phys_package_first_cpu(cpu)) > > I don't like using percentages here - we end up with the potential for > several percentages to end up mapping to the same P state. Does it matter? > I've sent a > patch that replaces the percentage code with just stepping through P > states instead. But otherwise, yes, this seems sensible. An open > question is whether we should be doing the same on _PPC notifications. > There's some vague evidence that Windows does. If you stepped by P-states, then you behave entirely differently on a machine with many P-states vs a machine with few P-states. There is code floating about that exposes every 100 MHz step on SNB and later as a P-state -- you can have quite a few... thanks, -Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- 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
