Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 02:00:34 +0900 From: Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@freebsd.org> To: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> Cc: acpi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Annoyances with passive thermal code (acpi_thermal) Message-ID: <ygek6in5e4t.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> In-Reply-To: <4300C5DF.40409@root.org> References: <20050814023842.C0D845D07@ptavv.es.net> <ygezmrk2van.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> <ygeoe7zacqg.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> <4300C5DF.40409@root.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi,
>>>>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 09:42:07 -0700
>>>>> Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> said:
nate> Would you mind checking the implementation of CPUFREQ_SET in kern_cpu.c?
nate> I'm wondering what doesn't work about it and it's the right place to
nate> solve this problem.
I turned debug.cpufreq.verbose on. It seems that maximum frequency is
always saved even after I set lower frequency (1050) by sysctl(8).
Aug 15 04:51:05 kasuga kernel: cpufreq: saving level, freq 1200 prio 0
Where, 1200 is a maximum frequency of my box.
I'm now tracking CPUFREQ_SET. However, I cannot detect what is going
on.
Sincerely,
--
Hajimu UMEMOTO @ Internet Mutual Aid Society Yokohama, Japan
ume@mahoroba.org ume@{,jp.}FreeBSD.org
http://www.imasy.org/~ume/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ygek6in5e4t.wl%ume>