From owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org Mon Dec 29 14:07:13 2003
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by castle.jp.FreeBSD.org (8.11.6p2+3.4W/8.11.3) id hBT57Df19431;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:07:13 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org)
Received: from les.ath.cx (12.41.244.43.ap.yournet.ne.jp [43.244.41.12])
	by castle.jp.FreeBSD.org (8.11.6p2+3.4W/8.11.3) with SMTP/inet id hBT57CC19423
	for <acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:07:13 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from qhwt+acpi-jp@les.ath.cx)
Received: (qmail 4965 invoked by uid 1000); 29 Dec 2003 05:07:11 -0000
From: YONETANI Tomokazu <qhwt+acpi-jp@les.ath.cx>
To: acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org
Message-ID: <20031229050711.GA4867@les.ath.cx>
References: <20031228123440.GA898@les.ath.cx> <20031228141106.F9675@root.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20031228141106.F9675@root.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i
Reply-To: acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org
Precedence: list
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:07:11 +0900
X-Sequence: acpi-jp 2946
Subject: [acpi-jp 2946] Re: CPU throttling gone
Sender: owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org
X-Originator: qhwt+acpi-jp@les.ath.cx
X-Distribute: distribute version 2.1 (Alpha) patchlevel 24e+031216

On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 02:21:28PM -0800, Nate Lawson wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003, YONETANI Tomokazu wrote:
> > Today, after upgrading my -CURRENT box running as a router,
> > to see how new acpi code looks like. I noticed that some
> > oids under hw.acpi.cpu have changed, and at the same time
> > there's no CPU throttle knobs.
> >
> > $ sysctl hw.acpi
> > hw.acpi.cpu.cx_supported: C1/0
> > hw.acpi.cpu.cx_lowest: 0
> > hw.acpi.cpu.cx_history: 361434/0
> 
> Scope(\_PR_) {
>     Processor(CPU1, 1, 0x0, 0x0) {}
>     Processor(CPU2, 2, 0x0, 0x0) {}
> }
> 
> That is your processor block.  So you shouldn't have ever had throttling
> support.  P_BLK and P_BLK_LEN are both 0, meaning you have no throttling
> registers unless you had a _PTC object, which you don't.
> If we gave you throttling before, it was a mistake and it wouldn't have
> worked even if you had the sysctls.  Did throttling ever work for you with
> an old kernel?

Thanks for the explanation, that makes sense, and it agrees with what the
old code was doing. I think I was believing it without actually testing
the throttling worked.
