From: Pavel M. <pa...@uc...> - 2004-03-12 20:22:01
|
Hi! +0100, Bruno Ducrot wrote: > > > --- clean/include/linux/cpufreq.h 2004-01-09 20:24:26.000000000 +0100 > > > +++ linux/include/linux/cpufreq.h 2004-03-01 19:02:48.000000000 +0100 > > > @@ -316,6 +316,7 @@ > > > unsigned int index; /* any */ > > > unsigned int frequency; /* kHz - doesn't need to be in ascending > > > * order */ > > > + unsigned int voltage; /* mV */ > > > }; > > > > Well, why not? > > Four reasons: > > 1.) not all cpufreq drivers which use frequency table helpers know the > voltage > > 2.) most cpufreq drivers don't need to know the voltage -- they need to know > a value [==index] to be written to some sort of register [msr/io/whatever]. > > 3.) sizeof(struct cpufreq_table_entry) > > 4.) the overrides discussed for k{7,8} are very driver-specific and do > neither belong into the cpufreq core nor into the cpufreq frequency table > helpers. After seeing k7 table that contains specific parameters (settle time etc) for each state, I have to agree that what I suggested is bad idea. -- 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=28 ttl=51 time=448769.1 ms |