From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 13 01:13:59 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CBC516A468; Sun, 13 Jan 2008 01:13:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stefan.lambrev@moneybookers.com) Received: from blah.sun-fish.com (blah.sun-fish.com [217.18.249.150]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19C1A13C442; Sun, 13 Jan 2008 01:13:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stefan.lambrev@moneybookers.com) Received: by blah.sun-fish.com (Postfix, from userid 1002) id C94D31B10EF9; Sun, 13 Jan 2008 02:13:57 +0100 (CET) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on blah.cmotd.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.6 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.3 Received: from [10.1.1.2] (unknown [192.168.25.10]) by blah.sun-fish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5EA61B10EF7; Sun, 13 Jan 2008 02:13:54 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <478965CC.1010609@moneybookers.com> Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 03:13:48 +0200 From: Stefan Lambrev User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nate Lawson References: <200801110909.m0B99tlr097501@lurza.secnetix.de> <47873840.7050401@moneybookers.com> <47894263.6010706@root.org> In-Reply-To: <47894263.6010706@root.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1251; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.91.2/5479/Sun Jan 13 00:08:34 2008 on blah.cmotd.com X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: bruno@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: powerd adaptive mode latching X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 01:13:59 -0000 Nate Lawson wrote: > I am not sure this patch should be committed as-is. It might be better > centralized in the cpufreq mid-layer so that all drivers benefit instead > of just acpi_perf. If there are frequencies that are too close to each > other (no matter what the source driver), it might be good to eliminate > them. > > I'll look into it later today. > > -Nate > I fully agree that centralized solution is better. But at this late stage of RELENG_7_0, I'm happy with this patch, as it solves our problem and is very simple. If you can come with something better before 7-RELEASE, it's OK, but otherwise I think we should have this patch in the CVS and then RELENG_7_0 (even marked as XXX) The other patch actually is in powerd.c and with it doesn't matter what is the source of the information, but I personally, more like the acpi_perf patch :)