Re: [PATCH 4/5] ACPI: Do cpufreq clamping for throttling perpackage v2

[Matthew Garrett]

On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 08:17:11AM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> +#define reduction_pctg(cpu) \
> +	per_cpu(cpufreq_thermal_reduction_pctg, phys_package_first_cpu(cpu))

I don't like using percentages here - we end up with the potential for 
several percentages to end up mapping to the same P state. I've sent a 
patch that replaces the percentage code with just stepping through P 
states instead. But otherwise, yes, this seems sensible. An open 
question is whether we should be doing the same on _PPC notifications. 
There's some vague evidence that Windows does.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/