That wasn't the exact intention, although I'm sorry it did sound that way. The problem here is due to go away immediately instead of progressively, but I still think it's short sighted to go the easy route without considering how many people out there don't have this feature. It affects many large customers, just as much as it does people who just bought Sun hardware, which due to bad marketing and some actual facts, supposedly had power management. It's obvious the hardware itself supports it, but not easily in Solaris, it's just false advertising is all, false hope, call it what you want. I am not mad about it, I don't have a big problem with the system running full speed, but I have seen it ran with dynamic clocking, and I think it's nice.
A necessity, no, but I'm certain all mobile AMD units out there don't support the new and upcoming feature which will be used. Most Intel's alike don't either, I know plenty of people still on regular Core Duo and late Pentium IV's. It's not cost effective to go out and replace things for most, although it depends how much power management features would save you, I'll leave that up to the users to decide. I would like to see some experimentation though with making it not so dependent on legacy methods of in this case, the time counter, as well as other wrong ways of doing things due to the age of Solaris' core architecture. James On Oct 24, 2007, at 11:46 AM, Mike DeMarco wrote: >> Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote: >>>> Then why does Windows work with it? It has to >> handle ticks too, and >>>> I'm sure it does it in a similar fashion at the >> lower level. Windows >>>> is architecturally just as nasty, if not more than >> Solaris, and is an >>>> evolution of NT 3.51, so I believe with enough >> manpower, it'd be >>>> possible, albeit highly difficult. >>>> >>> >>> "Given enough manpower" yes, it is possible, but it >> will cost quite a >>> bit of additional overhead to switch to a different >> timer base. >>> >>> (Solaris derives time from TSC and needds time to >> be the same across >>> all CPUs for obvious reasons.) >>> >>> Casper >>> >> Who's to blame? I still say Sun is here, you guys >> took forever to even >> fully support x86. I am aware that since Solaris 2.6 >> Sun had an x86 >> port, that didn't make it at feature parity with >> SPARC systems. Now, >> outside of the politics and general usability scope, >> what specific >> source files would I go about looking at, so I can >> figure this out a bit >> more. Excuse me for seeming a bit naive, I do not >> have experience with >> the actual OpenSolaris source, I have not had time in >> the past to look >> at it. But I will give it a look now, it'd be in my >> best interest to >> make a rough estimate in how many man hours it'd need >> to get done. I'm >> prematurely guessing it'd take a full year, based on >> your assertion that >> overdependence of "cheap ticks" is pervasive through >> the whole kernel >> architecture. >> >> James >> _______________________________________________ >> laptop-discuss mailing list >> laptop-discuss at opensolaris.org > > Lot of good information guys but I do not want my thread to turn > into a bash session. I do appreciate all the information but please > keep it out of the mud. > > Thanks > mike > > > This message posted from opensolaris.org > _______________________________________________ > laptop-discuss mailing list > laptop-discuss at opensolaris.org
