On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Taku YAMAMOTO wrote: > 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); Thanks, this was the problem. I've committed the fix. -NateReceived on Fri Dec 12 2003 - 10:43:05 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:33 UTC