0.3.2 acpi-cpufreq patch for kernel 3.0.x

You can write down your success stories here (temperature decreasements, power savings, etc).
Post Reply
phip
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat 22. Oct 2011, 20:00

0.3.2 acpi-cpufreq patch for kernel 3.0.x

Post by phip » Sat 22. Oct 2011, 20:38

I’m using PHC since 2007, now is the time to thank you all for Processor Hardware Control! It is the main reason I can use my Samsung X20 ’till today (740@18 9 4 0), I think, and the battery works also fine. ’cause I can’t thank enough, I do it with a patch I searched for a long time and could not find forcing me to omit the obligatory kernel updates. Long story short:

http://pastebin.com/ux6CwRzW

Tested for 24 h under heavy load with linux-3.0.7-gentoo. It work’s!!!

Have a lot of fun and thanx again!

lio
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed 2. Mar 2011, 18:37

Re: 0.3.2 acpi-cpufreq patch for kernel 3.0.x

Post by lio » Sun 23. Oct 2011, 15:35

Hi,

if you don't want to patch all future kernels yourself, have a look at http://www.linux-phc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=267 for up to date patches.

Dirk

phip
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat 22. Oct 2011, 20:00

Re: 0.3.2 acpi-cpufreq patch for kernel 3.0.x

Post by phip » Sun 23. Oct 2011, 17:57

Hey Dirk!

Wow! I ignored this post for no reason. There are all the patches I've been searching for. Now I should be angry about the time I wasted for my patch (analysing the differences between 2.6.34 and 3.0.7 in acpi-cpufreq.c … realizing “.owner = THIS_MODULE” isn't necessary …) but I learned many things, and that’s great. I’ll apply your patch now; there are minimal differences around line 700 which might kill my laptop ;–) I should definitely learn C before putting my hands on code I don’t understand …

many thanx again!

lio
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed 2. Mar 2011, 18:37

Re: 0.3.2 acpi-cpufreq patch for kernel 3.0.x

Post by lio » Sun 23. Oct 2011, 19:19

phip wrote:there are minimal differences around line 700 which might kill my laptop ;–) I should definitely learn C before putting my hands on code I don’t understand …
The location of kfree(data->freq_table); is the only difference I spotted on a first view around line 700. So you just free memory in a slightly different order. Nothing scary. ;-)

Dirk

Post Reply