Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 17:22:44 +0200 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> To: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> Cc: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: aperf/mperf Message-ID: <4CEBDC44.4020908@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4CE79AB9.1020303@freebsd.org> References: <4CE29718.2050508@freebsd.org> <D1DB20AD-779E-469B-BFFA-C0BA1A249858@neville-neil.com> <4CE51CDA.6010202@freebsd.org> <AANLkTimcJFL8Y47mTznKz72w0z5%2BVoc9oWrz92kE%2BwQa@mail.gmail.com> <4CE533DE.7010401@freebsd.org> <4CE68C0B.1080007@freebsd.org> <4CE6CB3E.70009@root.org> <4CE79AB9.1020303@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 20/11/2010 11:54 Andriy Gapon said the following: > This suggestion sounds quite appealing. > But I have some concerns. > What if hardware has the capability, but there is no cpufreq - could these MSRs > be still useful? Or are they useful only with cpufreq? Probably the latter... > Then, another exotic case - if a driver like est or hwpstate is attached > "directly", i.e. there is no acpi_perf/_PSS - would the MSRs be still useful? > Not sure. Perhaps this could be done in some common code to be shared between est for Intel and hwpstate and amdtemp for AMD? -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4CEBDC44.4020908>