Against linux-source-2.6.20 this bug does not meet the criteria for a
stable release update and is being marked as Won't Fix. You can learn
more about the stable release update process at
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates .
If this is still a issue for the upcoming Hardy kernel, please
** Also affects: linux-source-2.6.22 (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
--
FEATURE REQUEST: include linux-phc patch in kernel
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/63789
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu.
-
its confirmed by ben but should IMHO not be treated as already fixed!
** Description changed:
For many users with Pentium M processors this patch is really nice.
Webpage: https://www.dedigentoo.org/trac/linux-phc/
Another idea might be a seperate kernel package for Pentium M users;
>Yes, actually I'd like to see any evidence that undervolting can damage
a CPU or other hardware. I haven't seen that anywhere. >Thanks.
I've been seriously trying to damage some hardware myself with this
patch in the past. The only thing that happens is that everything
freezes and a cold shutdown
Yes, actually I'd like to see any evidence that undervolting can damage
a CPU or other hardware. I haven't seen that anywhere. Thanks.
--
FEATURE REQUEST: include linux-phc patch in kernel
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/63789
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
I don't see that a fix is commited for all the points we talked about.
Ben, why don't you discuss the open points with us here?
--
FEATURE REQUEST: include linux-phc patch in kernel
https://launchpad.net/bugs/63789
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.c
** Changed in: linux-source-2.6.20 (Ubuntu)
Status: Fix Committed => Fix Released
--
FEATURE REQUEST: include linux-phc patch in kernel
https://launchpad.net/bugs/63789
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
I didn't realize that this patch was also used to fix broken BIOSes.
Therefore, I take back what I said about there being little point in
including this patch.
However I still maintain that *if you have a correctly working BIOS*,
you will not get much of a performance boost from the default tables
I didn't realize that this patch was also used to fix broken BIOSes.
Therefore, I take back what I said about there being little point in
including this patch.
However I still maintain that *if you have a correctly working BIOS*,
you will not get much of a performance boost from the default tables
First, thanks to Ben for getting this in.
Second, Pausanias, I have to disagree. I at least have a badly broken
BIOS and have been forced to patch the kernel myself to put in exactly
the conservative tables you speak of in order to run my 1.6GHz chip at
any speed higher than 600MHz. There is, at
If you are not willing to implement the sysfs interace, then there is
little point in including this patch. The default tables are *extremely*
conservative. There is virtually no gain as far as extended battery life
or lower operating temperature when using those tables.
--
FEATURE REQUEST: inclu
Some of us have laptops with lousy heat control, and undervolting is a
great help (not to mention, as Phillip said, that it helps prolong
battery life). The only problem I've ever experienced from undervolting
too much, by one voltage increment, is a system lockup resolved by
rebooting and adjustin
Is it only a problem when users overvolt their hardware or also when
they undervolt the hardware (beside freezes of course!) ?
If only overclocking is a real problem I think that it shouldn't be that
hard to implement a limit based on the cpu default tables...
For users with bad acpi tables the b
Please note I only included the built-in tables portion of the phc
patch. I do not want to support the sysfs twiddling. Based on the
information I've seen, it can prove dangerous, and I'm not open to
allowing our users to accidentally break their hardware. The cpufreq
tables should suffice for what
** Changed in: linux-source-2.6.20 (Ubuntu)
Assignee: (unassigned) => Ben Collins
Status: Confirmed => In Progress
--
FEATURE REQUEST: include linux-phc patch in kernel
https://launchpad.net/bugs/63789
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com
I'd be very much interested in a phc package for the feisty kernel as
well. Anyone?
--
FEATURE REQUEST: include linux-phc patch in kernel
https://launchpad.net/bugs/63789
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Is there any chance of someone releasing a Debian package for the new
2.6.20 kernel that in the current ubuntu feisty? I've tried all the
guides and just can't get the kernel to compile after patching with the
PHC 0.29 from svn.
--
FEATURE REQUEST: include linux-phc patch in kernel
https://launch
Thanks a lot for these patches. I've had problems with 0.27 starting
properly at boot (and I think I've read every thread related to the
subject), so what about an 0.28 patch for the stock Edgy kernel
(2.6.17-10)? If possible. Thanks again.
--
FEATURE REQUEST: include linux-phc patch in kernel
ht
** Changed in: linux-source-2.6.19 (Ubuntu)
Sourcepackagename: linux-source-2.6.19 => linux-source-2.6.20
--
FEATURE REQUEST: include linux-phc patch in kernel
https://launchpad.net/bugs/63789
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubu
a package with the module for linux-image-2.6.19-7-generic .
** Attachment added: "linux-phc-0.2.8.deb, install it with dpkg
--force-overwrite -i linux-phc-0.2.8.deb"
http://librarian.launchpad.net/5248723/linux-phc-0.2.8.deb
--
FEATURE REQUEST: include linux-phc patch in kernel
https://lau
after you've installed the package you should
- set your voltage settings in /etc/linux-phc/undervolt
- reboot
--
FEATURE REQUEST: include linux-phc patch in kernel
https://launchpad.net/bugs/63789
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listin
** Attachment added: "a package which installs the linux-phc configurationfiles
and a kernel module for kernel 2.6.17 (testet with the latest edgy kernel)
install it with dpkg --force-overwrite -i linux-phc-0.2.7.deb"
http://librarian.launchpad.net/5246297/linux-phc-0.2.7.deb
--
FEATURE REQ
Maybe this is just a serious problem for me ... but under 2.6.17 my
computer functions and under the latest it does not. Without scaling it
overheats and is unusable for any computationally intensive task (my
only recourse is to use a conservative governor which is now
impossible).
I know this is
i talked to the maintainers and they told me that to include it in the
mainline kernel is nearly impossible. Look at
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/7/4/246 .
if the patch can't get in ubuntu, maybe a seperate package with the
patched speedstep-centrino module will help the users to use this
feature...
I'll consider this patch, but I can't guarantee it to get in. The reason
being that it modifies stock code, and we are trying to avoid that where
possible.
The main question I have is if this patch is as useful as it claims (and
it seems that it is), why isn't it merged with upstream kernel? As mu
Feature request from dapper.
** Changed in: linux-source-2.6.15 (Ubuntu)
Sourcepackagename: linux-source-2.6.15 => linux-source-2.6.19
Importance: Undecided => Wishlist
--
FEATURE REQUEST: include linux-phc patch in kernel
https://launchpad.net/bugs/63789
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-
26 matches
Mail list logo
