On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 01:43:08PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> >
> > Do these CPUs need kernel support? E.g. do udelay() calls work as
> > expected?
>
> Crusoe CPU's do not.
Great.
> But Intel CPU's _do_ need this, for example (since they change the TSC
> frequency).
And that's why there is some need for a cpufreq core (which manages
loops_per_jiffy etc.) and the need for the cpufreq drivers (#2 and #3 in my
previous mail).
> Which is why such a CPU needs to be passed in a _policy_. Which is my
> whole argument.
Which is #1 - the "input" to the cpufreq core. This can be seperated from
the cpufreq core. So basically
"policy input" --> "frequency input" --> cpufreq core --> cpufreq driver
user-space | k e r n e l - s p a c e
instead of
"policy input" --> "frequency input" --> cpufreq core --> cpufreq driver
u s e r - s p a c e | k e r n e l - s p a c e
Linus, would you agree to the /proc interface as one of several
frequency "input"/management options? It's good for testing, for some
workloads (LART), and it's (almost) done (just needs seperating from
the cpufreq core)...
Dominik
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Aug 31 2002 - 22:00:24 EST