on 04/07/2013 08:37 Jia-Shiun Li said the following: > ok anyone can help test and review this patch?
I can not bless this change, but I won't argue against it either. My opinion is still that OS should advertise to ACPI the capabilities that it actually has not those that it potentially may have. So I prefer the status quo. I think that this is a minor issue and cpufreq should just be in kernel, and that's it. > It will allow cpufreq to be removed from kernel conf, loaded and > function correctly as kernel module. I've tested it ok on my own > i5-3450. > > It removes get_features method definition from acpi_if.m and > corresponding implementations from est, p4tcc, & hwpstate. Feature > flags are set directly in acpi_cpu.c omitting previous procedure of > querying cpufreq drivers. > > > After this, I'd like to find some ways to feed CPU loading info > directly in kernel to cpufreq for finer & quicker control of > frequencies. -- Andriy Gapon _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
