View Single Post
Old 5th June 2008
yurtesen yurtesen is offline
Port Guard
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 18
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by radcapricorn View Post
I didn't mean to offend, and I don't throw the context away. What I have meant is that you're building your decision on top of say 'untrusted' thing. I might say that, while running powerd and launching that kind of program you've posted (chkfreq I mean), it may well be that the frequency just goes up again so it does show max freq and all.
The program is pretty trustable and it is based on a well known assembly command. It is very short and you can see the source code to review as well. It also gives correct processor speed on every platform I run it. Also, on the same machines if I change the processor speed using acpi_ppc, then chkfreq reports lowered CPU speed correctly. Perhaps I should point out here that the chkfreq has no code which interacts with acpi_ppc and it does the processor speed test independently so it is not a situation where the tool works with the shipped module only.

Also, if you read my first post, I already mentioned that powerd is not increasing the speed during the test. I have verified this by running powerd with -v switch. Actually even more, I have changed the chkfreq's freq sysctl manually without running powerd at all. So there cant be any such issue.

Can you explain why you think that cpufreq is working? I mean how do you come to this conclusion? I took it granted that it didnt give errors so it must be working until today myself. But now I see that I was wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by radcapricorn View Post
Well that's nice... What is inside OS code is irrelevant, but what's inside third-party code is? Are we still talking about OPEN-SOURCE UNIX system or (you-know-what-OS-I-mean)?
cpufreq speaks to drivers that do the actual work. Generally, if ACPI system/drivers on your box may lie, so may cpufreq. But in that case it's not powerd/cpufreq fault anymore.
Here I am trying to verify if cpufreq works or not. It doesnt require going into the code. It is irrelevant if ACPI system lies or not, that would be the cause of the problem if ACPI system lies. Which doesnt change the fact that cpufreq says that it changed the speed but it actually didnt, meaning it doesnt work. If there is this kind of problem, this must be at least documented in the manual. Now people think that it doesnt give error so it must be working.

But if cpufreq doesnt work but acpi_ppc works then wouldnt you say that there is a problem in cpufreq which should be fixed? because it is obviously lying to people and it can be fixed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by radcapricorn View Post
Well, I hope the people will offer their options. Personally I don't test if I'm certain that ACPI works (if I'm uncertain, I don't use tools like cpufreq so nothing to test here :-) ).
With what information you are certain that cpufreq works properly for you? I have to say, "I'm certain" does not qualify as a proof, do you see scientists having theories/hyphothesis backed up with "I'm certain" ?

I asked this to you in my previous post also. How do you know that cpufreq really works? If you cant give a solid, verifiable answer to this question then it means that it is not a fact that it works, it is your opinion/view that it works which can be right or wrong (which makes an opinion without proof mostly useless eh?)

Please understand that I am not trying to be offensive here, but I have put my case with a lot of information and examples and I am getting answers which ignores and omits all those information. I just dont like explaining all again and again.

Thanks,
Evren
Reply With Quote