On 21-Jan-2003 Nate Lawson wrote:
> How is this?
>
> --- acpi_cpu.c 16 Oct 2002 17:28:52 - 1.14
> +++ acpi_cpu.c 21 Jan 2003 06:07:43 -
> @@ -295,8 +295,10 @@
> /* set initial speed */
> acpi_cpu_power_profile(NULL);
>
> -printf("acpi_cpu: CPU throttling enabled
In the last episode (Jan 21), Terry Lambert said:
> I think that changing the order from "100% to 10%" to "10% to 100%"
> will, if people ignore the second printed line, imply that there was
> a transition from 10% to 100%, rather than the reverse (that was my
> response to the patch).
Or better y
Daniel Holmes wrote:
> > +printf("acpi_cpu: throttling enabled, %d steps from 100%% to %d.%d%%, "
> > + "currently %d.%d%%\n"
>
> Personally, rather than 'enabled', how about 'available'? Using the
> word enabled might give some newbies fits when they try to figure it
> out what it me
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Daniel Holmes wrote:
> > +printf("acpi_cpu: throttling enabled, %d steps from 100%% to %d.%d%%, "
> > + "currently %d.%d%%\n"
>
> Personally, rather than 'enabled', how about 'available'? Using the
> word enabled might give some newbies fits when they try to figu
> +printf("acpi_cpu: throttling enabled, %d steps from 100%% to %d.%d%%, "
> + "currently %d.%d%%\n"
Personally, rather than 'enabled', how about 'available'? Using the
word enabled might give some newbies fits when they try to figure it
out what it means. It sounds like the throttli
Nate Lawson wrote:
> How is this?
[ ... less alarming throttling message ... ]
I like it. I don't know if it's redundant with the "currently ..."
thing, but I'd like to see it:
+printf("acpi_cpu: throttling enabled, %d steps from %d.%d%% to 100%%, "
Instead; of course, that's my left-to-ri
How is this?
--- acpi_cpu.c 16 Oct 2002 17:28:52 - 1.14
+++ acpi_cpu.c 21 Jan 2003 06:07:43 -
@@ -295,8 +295,10 @@
/* set initial speed */
acpi_cpu_power_profile(NULL);
-printf("acpi_cpu: CPU throttling enabled, %d steps from 100%% to %d.%d%%\n",
- CPU_M
