From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ducrot Bruno Subject: Re: [PATCH][DOCUMENTATION BUGFIX] latency in micro-, not nanoseconds Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:02:45 +0100 Sender: cpufreq-bounces@www.linux.org.uk Message-ID: <20031112150245.GA32464@poupinou.org> References: <20031104160816.GA9187@brodo.de> <20031110163209.GP10144@redhat.com> <20031110171533.GS21970@poupinou.org> <20031110172246.GT10144@redhat.com> <20031110205029.GA7149@brodo.de> <20031110211654.GA10144@redhat.com> <20031111185417.GB4825@brodo.de> <20031111224501.GA30698@redhat.com> <20031112110134.GR29175@poupinou.org> <20031112141754.GC31026@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031112141754.GC31026@redhat.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: cpufreq-bounces@www.linux.org.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Dave Jones Cc: cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk, Dominik Brodowski On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 02:17:54PM +0000, Dave Jones wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 12:01:34PM +0100, Ducrot Bruno wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 10:45:02PM +0000, Dave Jones wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 07:54:17PM +0100, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > > > BTW, it's not enough for powernow-k7 to divide the BIOS-known latency by 50. > > > > This latency for one VID and one FID transition needs to be multiplied by > > > > the number of p-states minus 1, as that's the actual maximum latency due to > > > > the "one step up/down only" loop, IIRC. > > > > > > Yoinks, I thought I had merged that patch (so did you judging from > > > that last sentence), but it fell through the cracks somehow. > > > I'll see if I can dig it out if I still have it. > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > I expected that correcting latency and fixing the change_[FV]ID() > > will make any patch doing 'one step up/down only' for K7 to be rejected? > > Worse yet, I can't put my finger on the mail that had the patch. > I'll dig some more, but I'm wondering if this was lost in the > window between a backup and my IBM deskstars dieing a few months back. > Well, I should have one or two patch(s) for, if really needed, but what I wanted to point is that now 'latency' is fixed, and change_VID() is debugged, my brain-damaged try-to-hang http://www.poupinou.org/cpufreq/test_all_freqs.c don't want to crash the laptop now. Cheers, -- Ducrot Bruno -- Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? -- Don't know. Don't care.