From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Dec 24 21:16:57 2007
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E41A16A418
	for <freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.org>; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 21:16:57 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from aragon@phat.za.net)
Received: from mail.geek.sh (decoder.geek.sh [196.36.198.81])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B81C113C448
	for <freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.org>; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 21:16:56 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from aragon@phat.za.net)
Received: by mail.geek.sh (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id CD92E24D29; Mon, 24 Dec 2007 23:16:54 +0200 (SAST)
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 23:16:54 +0200
From: Aragon Gouveia <aragon@phat.za.net>
To: Rui Paulo <rpaulo@fnop.net>
Message-ID: <20071224211654.GA64050@phat.za.net>
References: <476E8674.5000303@gmail.com> <20071224091511.GA25786@phat.za.net>
	<86hci8mffc.wl%rpaulo@fnop.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <86hci8mffc.wl%rpaulo@fnop.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.10-RELEASE-p2 i386
Cc: freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: powerd doesn't decrease CPU frequency in some cases
X-BeenThere: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: ACPI and power management development <freebsd-acpi.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi>,
	<mailto:freebsd-acpi-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-acpi>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-acpi-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi>,
	<mailto:freebsd-acpi-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 21:16:57 -0000

Hi,

| By Rui Paulo <rpaulo@fnop.net>
|                                          [ 2007-12-24 14:43 +0200 ]
> Isn't it better to teach est(4) to ignore values that differ in, say,  
> +/- 5Mhz ?

I agree my patch isn't ideal.  I was thinking about it today and it might
be useful to implement something that ignores frequencies whose power
ratings don't differ by more than X mW.  In my case, both 2201 and 2200 are
rated to draw 35000 mW.  The question is, in these cases which one of the
two should be ignored?  Can't ignore both...

Sorry Andrey, I missed your patch.  Was a bit overly excited when I saw
someone else finally experiencing the same problem as me after receiving
zero response a month ago when I posted about it. :)

Something I asked in my post a month ago was where does
dev.cpu.X.freq_levels get its data?  I was thinking it might be something
that can be addressed with a patched ACPI DSDT?


Regards,
Aragon