On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:07:42 -0600 Ryan Sommers <ryans_at_gamersimpact.com> wrote: > Here are my results from testing this patch. It appears as though the > stepping "works" for the first step and not again. However, the first > step shows a approx. 20% increase, I was expecting something closer to > 12.5%. I think we need (CPU_MAX_SPEED-1) instead of CPU_MAX_SPEED when calculating mask value (in acpi_cpu_throttle_set()): --- src/sys/dev/acpica/acpi_cpu.c.orig Fri Nov 28 01:32:46 2003 +++ src/sys/dev/acpica/acpi_cpu.c Sat Nov 29 20:41:28 2003 _at__at_ -780,7 +780,7 _at__at_ /* If we're at maximum speed, that's all */ if (speed < CPU_MAX_SPEED) { /* Mask the old CLK_VAL off and or-in the new value */ - clk_val = CPU_MAX_SPEED << cpu_duty_offset; + clk_val = (CPU_MAX_SPEED - 1) << cpu_duty_offset; p_cnt &= ~clk_val; p_cnt |= (speed << cpu_duty_offset); regards, Taku -- -|-__ YAMAMOTO, Taku <taku_at_cent.saitama-u.ac.jp> | __ <Received on Thu Dec 11 2003 - 23:00:06 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:33 UTC