On Thursday, 3 of February 2005 12:01, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 11:58:46AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > > On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 11:41:26AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > > Okay, you are right, restoring it unconditionaly would be bad
> > > > idea. Still it would be nice to tell cpufreq governor "please change
> > > > the frequency ASAP" so it does not run at 800MHz for half an hour
> > > > compiling kernels on AC power.
> > >
> > > It already does that... or at least it should. in cpufreq_resume() there
> > > is
> > > a call to schedule_work(&cpu_policy->update); which will cause a call
> > > cpufreq_update_policy() in due course. And cpufreq_update_policy() calls
> > > the
> > > governor, and it is supposed to adjust the frequency to the user's wish
> > > then.
> >
> > Ok, so Rafael's suspend() routine seems like good fix...
>
> No. I don't see a reason why my desktop P4 should drop to 12.5 frequency
> (p4-clockmod) if I ask it to suspend to mem.
So, would it be acceptable to check in _suspend() if the state is S4
and drop the frequency in that case or do nothing otherwise?
Rafael
--
- Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?
- That depends a good deal on where you want to get to.
-- Lewis Carroll "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
