On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 11:56:07AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 12:13:49PM +0100, Erik Mouw wrote:
> > Earlier in this thread you said (I should have quoted that, my fault):
> >
> > Adding any other interface to obtain this value is equally as broken.
> >
> > So I'm confused, sysfs one of the "any other interfaces"...
>
> userspace governors need to know the available frequencies to scale to,
> which they obtain from sysfs. In addition, we maintain an index as to
> which of those is currently chosen. However, programs should not rely
> on this to be a "how fast is my CPU" status, as it's totally meaningless.
> It's there purely for humans to see "Yes, X < Y, so I'm going at the
> lower of the frequencies my CPU can do", not for programs to calculate
> delays loops and such.
Agreed, sysfs is the way to go.
Erik
--
+-- Erik Mouw -- www.harddisk-recovery.com -- +31 70 370 12 90 --
| Lab address: Delftechpark 26, 2628 XH, Delft, The Netherlands
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
