From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Dec 12 11:43:05 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BCE516A4CE
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>;
	Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:43:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rootlabs.com (root.org [67.118.192.226])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3861A43D35
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>;
	Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:43:04 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from nate@rootlabs.com)
Received: (qmail 53642 invoked by uid 1000); 12 Dec 2003 19:43:05 -0000
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:43:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org>
To: acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org
In-Reply-To: <20031212165954.20ee787f.taku@cent.saitama-u.ac.jp>
Message-ID: <20031212114245.P53627@root.org>
References: <20031209175230.I44055@root.org> <20031211141205.X50937@root.org>
	<20031212165954.20ee787f.taku@cent.saitama-u.ac.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: [acpi-jp 2888] Re: ACPI throttling changes
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:43:05 -0000

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Taku YAMAMOTO wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:07:42 -0600
> Ryan Sommers <ryans@gamersimpact.com> wrote:
> > Here are my results from testing this patch. It appears as though the
> > stepping "works" for the first step and not again. However, the first
> > step shows a approx. 20% increase, I was expecting something closer to
> > 12.5%.
>
> I think we need (CPU_MAX_SPEED-1) instead of CPU_MAX_SPEED when calculating
> mask value (in acpi_cpu_throttle_set()):
>
> --- src/sys/dev/acpica/acpi_cpu.c.orig	Fri Nov 28 01:32:46 2003
> +++ src/sys/dev/acpica/acpi_cpu.c	Sat Nov 29 20:41:28 2003
> @@ -780,7 +780,7 @@
>  	/* If we're at maximum speed, that's all */
>  	if (speed < CPU_MAX_SPEED) {
>  	    /* Mask the old CLK_VAL off and or-in the new value */
> -	    clk_val = CPU_MAX_SPEED << cpu_duty_offset;
> +	    clk_val = (CPU_MAX_SPEED - 1) << cpu_duty_offset;
>  	    p_cnt &= ~clk_val;
>  	    p_cnt |= (speed << cpu_duty_offset);

Thanks, this was the problem.  I've committed the fix.

-Nate