Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: ACPI Power Management Gets Improved In Linux 3.8

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,129

    Default ACPI Power Management Gets Improved In Linux 3.8

    Phoronix: ACPI Power Management Gets Improved In Linux 3.8

    The ACPI and power management updates targeting the Linux 3.8 kernel were already submitted to Linus Torvalds this morning. There's a whole lot of new work to look forward to when it comes to power management in this next kernel...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTI0ODg

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    106

    Default

    What's the difference between "devfreq" and "cpufreq"? I get the impression that devfreq is more capable and comprehensive, but I'm not sure if it's meant to supplement cpufreq or replace it. I've been a longtime cpufreq user, but am curious, since it appears that devfreq may be better. However I haven't found much in the way of userspace packages (Gentoo ebuilds, for instance) for devfreq.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    536

    Default

    ..." and yours truly."

    Too much copy pasta, I thought for a moment Michael had started writing kernel patches too, lol.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pennsylvania, United States
    Posts
    1,911

    Default

    Not enough of a hardware guy to know this offhand... will any of the items listed actually improve power consumption on linux systems running 3.8 kernel compared to 3.7? or is this mostly "fill in whats missing from the standard" stuff and "Has to be implemented by individual drivers to be useful" stuff?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Russe, Bulgaria
    Posts
    527

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [Knuckles] View Post
    ..." and yours truly."

    Too much copy pasta, I thought for a moment Michael had started writing kernel patches too, lol.
    If Michael had started writing kernel patches, it would be "single handedly", of course

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phred14 View Post
    What's the difference between "devfreq" and "cpufreq"? I get the impression that devfreq is more capable and comprehensive, but I'm not sure if it's meant to supplement cpufreq or replace it. I've been a longtime cpufreq user, but am curious, since it appears that devfreq may be better. However I haven't found much in the way of userspace packages (Gentoo ebuilds, for instance) for devfreq.

    DevFreq controls DVFS and lets you hook chipsets other than a cpu into dynamic power management based on some sort of state notification.

    From what little I can tell it can turn parts of a SoC on, off, and places between. based on demands. (appearrently the memory controllers are the main target)

    http://lxr.linux.no/linux/drivers/devfreq/exynos4_bus.c

    However cpufreq is still used for the cpu because it a lot more refined towards that purpose.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    213

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drago View Post
    If Michael had started writing kernel patches, it would be "single handedly", of course
    I'm really scared about what Michael does with his other hand...

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    France
    Posts
    52

    Default S3

    As far as 3.2 any kernel release crashed when waking up from suspend to ram
    ( using an Intel Core i7-920 & ArchLinux x86_64 )
    Hope this issue is solved

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    in front of my box :p
    Posts
    811

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timofonic View Post
    I'm really scared about what Michael does with his other hand...
    Holding a cold beer of course.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •