Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264518AbTK0NXx (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Nov 2003 08:23:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264519AbTK0NXw (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Nov 2003 08:23:52 -0500 Received: from ftp.symdata.com ([207.44.192.51]:49369 "HELO dev.symdata.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S264518AbTK0NXu (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Nov 2003 08:23:50 -0500 From: Simon Organization: highlyillogical.org To: Marco Roeland Subject: Re: [2.6.0-test10] cpufreq: 2G P4M won't go above 1.2G - cpuinfo_max_freq too low Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 13:23:32 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.2 Cc: Linux Kernel Development References: <200311271139.07260.simon@highlyillogical.org> <20031127121801.GB9098@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20031127121801.GB9098@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200311271323.37123.simon@highlyillogical.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2574 Lines: 56 > On Thursday November 27th 2003 Simon wrote: > > I have a P4 2ghz (in a thinkpad), but it's not running at over about > > 1.2ghz now. On Thursday 27 November 2003 12:18 pm, Marco Roeland wrote: > It turned out to be an ACPI problem. Booting on 2.6 with "acpi=off" lead > to the correct 1.8GHz determination instead of only 1.2GHz, but no working > ACPI of course. On 2.4.21 booting either with of without ACPI made no > difference and lead on both occasions to 1.8GHz. > > After upgrading the BIOS to the latest version I could finally run 2.6 > with ACPI and at full capacity. I tried both of these, but the BIOS update changed nothing, and "acpi=off" just switched off acpi. The only thing I can tell is that my battery icon in KDE has disappeared... My CPU speed remains unaffected. *sigh* On Thursday 27 November 2003 12:15 pm, Marc Staudacher wrote off-list: > Is it the case that you're running the notebook i) with the battery > inserted and ii) ac-powered? > > It is custom to IBM Thinkpads that they only run at full speed if it is > the case that i) and ii). > > According to IBM the battery is necessary because it is possible that > the power supply does not generate enough energy in certain cases > (maximal load-scenarios). Thus, the maximal processor speed is > automatically restricted if the battery is not inserted. > > The ACPI changes between 2.4.21-ac2 and 2.6.0-test10 might account for > the different behaviour you experience. Yes, it is. I left my battery at home today, but borrowed one off a colleague. Inserting it did not change anything (at least after a minute or so) but rebooting with the battery insterted did speed the machine up. Similarly, after removing the battery, the CPU stayed at full speed. Is there anything I can do about this apart from go back to 2.4 (I've grown to like CONFIG_PREEMPT too much for that!) or run with the battery in all the time? - I've a string of past laptops where the batteries only last 5 minutes because of running with battery + ac power all the time, so I've been in the habit of always removing it these days... - I've never had a problem running it at max speed with 2.4. Seems that this is a fault of a better implementation of something... But "better" to me shouldn't take away choice of cpu speed from the user? ;) Thanks, Simon - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/