From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S270433AbTGWQdB (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:33:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S270444AbTGWQdA (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:33:00 -0400 Received: from natsmtp00.webmailer.de ([192.67.198.74]:59619 "EHLO post.webmailer.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S270443AbTGWQc4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:32:56 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:36:20 +0200 From: Dominik Brodowski To: textshell@neutronstar.dyndns.org Cc: davej@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Henrik Persson Subject: Re: 2.6.0-test1: CPUFreq not working, can't find sysfs interface Message-ID: <20030723163620.GC1870@brodo.de> References: <20030720150243.GJ2331@neutronstar.dyndns.org> <200307201745.h6KHjcHt095999@sirius.nix.badanka.com> <20030720211246.GK2331@neutronstar.dyndns.org> <20030722120811.GD1160@brodo.de> <20030722141839.GD7517@neutronstar.dyndns.org> <20030722142353.GA1301@brodo.de> <20030722145352.GE7517@neutronstar.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030722145352.GE7517@neutronstar.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 04:53:52PM +0200, textshell@neutronstar.dyndns.org wrote: > > Well, you could try using the PST which mostly matches your system except > > the CPUID [PST #12, see below] -- if the values used are similar to the ones > > Windows XP uses. But this might be risky!!! > > > > I think you know a bit more about these matters than me, so please allow me this > question: > How much risk do you think that would be (with the usual 'you are not responible > for any damages' stuff as usual) to just use that entry? At with the performance > governour it is exactly the same as displayed as currently by x86info so that > shouldn't be a problem. Do you think that lower frequencies and voltages can > kill the processor? [I can cope with instabilities] I really can't answer on that as I do neither know the hardware nor the BIOS implementation well enough. Sorry. BTW, it's no surprise that the x86info and cpufreq output are the same -- they use the same code. It'd be more interesting if Window$ uses the same values [just mentioning it as you said PowerNow works on it, so....] Dominik