From owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org Mon Dec 29 16:35:03 2003
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by castle.jp.FreeBSD.org (8.11.6p2+3.4W/8.11.3) id hBT7Z3n06680;
	Mon, 29 Dec 2003 16:35:03 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org)
Received: from rootlabs.com (root.org [67.118.192.226])
	by castle.jp.FreeBSD.org (8.11.6p2+3.4W/8.11.3) with SMTP/inet id hBT7Z0C06675
	for <acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org>; Mon, 29 Dec 2003 16:35:01 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from nate@rootlabs.com)
Received: (qmail 11848 invoked by uid 1000); 29 Dec 2003 07:34:57 -0000
From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org>
To: YONETANI Tomokazu <qhwt+acpi-jp@les.ath.cx>
cc: acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org
In-Reply-To: <20031229050711.GA4867@les.ath.cx>
Message-ID: <20031228233433.N11831@root.org>
References: <20031228123440.GA898@les.ath.cx> <20031228141106.F9675@root.org>
 <20031229050711.GA4867@les.ath.cx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org
Precedence: list
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 23:34:57 -0800
X-Sequence: acpi-jp 2947
Subject: [acpi-jp 2947] Re: CPU throttling gone
Sender: owner-acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org
X-Originator: nate@root.org
X-Distribute: distribute version 2.1 (Alpha) patchlevel 24e+031216

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, YONETANI Tomokazu wrote:
> 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.

Yes, that's what I expected.  Good to know we didn't break anything for
you.

-Nate
