Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753171Ab0LWOjS (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Dec 2010 09:39:18 -0500 Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:36732 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752527Ab0LWOjQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Dec 2010 09:39:16 -0500 Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 14:38:59 +0000 From: Matthew Garrett To: Dominik Brodowski , Youquan Song , davej@redhat.com, cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, venki@google.com, arjan@linux.intel.com, lenb@kernel.org, suresh.b.siddha@intel.com, kent.liu@intel.com, chaohong.guo@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Youquan Song Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] cpufreq: Evaluate P1 before enter turbo mode Message-ID: <20101223143859.GA1402@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1293085424-18212-1-git-send-email-youquan.song@intel.com> <1293085424-18212-2-git-send-email-youquan.song@intel.com> <1293085424-18212-3-git-send-email-youquan.song@intel.com> <1293085424-18212-4-git-send-email-youquan.song@intel.com> <1293085424-18212-5-git-send-email-youquan.song@intel.com> <1293085424-18212-6-git-send-email-youquan.song@intel.com> <1293085424-18212-7-git-send-email-youquan.song@intel.com> <20101223105730.GB18363@comet.dominikbrodowski.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101223105730.GB18363@comet.dominikbrodowski.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mjg59@cavan.codon.org.uk X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on cavan.codon.org.uk); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 780 Lines: 18 On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 11:57:30AM +0100, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > NACK. First of all, why is it only a "turbo mode" if it's 1000 kHz > difference? I believe that that's how it's supposed to be defined for Intel systems, but you're right that this doesn't belong in generic code. AMD have support for enabling/disabling their equivalent functionality through sysfs - I'd say that copying that interface and using it to limit the set of p-states provided to the core makes more sense. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org -- 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/