In D54803#1252813, @olce wrote:

I'm fine with the patch as it is. It is going to be useful in cases the hardware doesn't do self-tuning properly.

But that shouldn't be the end of the story.

At the moment, I'm not convinced at all that any of your use cases shows an actual problem with the new CPPC support code.

@cy: You say that, without powerd, the temperature is even higher. So CPPC seems to be actually having an effect, although at the default tuning, it's effectively very strange that your CPUs don't get cooler when the machine is idle (do you confirm?), which could be a hardware problem. Have you tried raising the epp sysctl knobs (IIRC, they are below something like dev.hwpstate_amdX for each CPU X) values above 50? What do the knobs debug.hwpstate_amdX report?

In D54803#1252665, @cracauer wrote:

In D54803#1252662, @cy wrote:

Mine never slowed down. It simply ran hot at between 98C and 100C.

You used powerd to control frequency, I did not. That might be the difference.

Mine never slowed down. It simply ran hot at between 98C and 100C.

The question I have is, do we want CPPC to be enabled by default or disabled by default? The patch leaves it enabled by default.

Fix pathname as ivy had impied.

In D54780#1252004, @markj wrote:

Which revision removed these?

In D54323#1252026, @kib wrote:

In D54323#1252001, @cy wrote:

DSO bump.

Why? This should be not needed, if you only add symbols.

Revert DSO bump.

DSO bump.

Remove duplicate symbols.

Add symbols identified by Chris Inacio <inacio@andrew.cmu.edu> and
markj@.

Added additional documentation.

Added documentation for mit-devel.

Are there any more comments before this is committed?

Made a couple of changes to ubreak the build.

Whitespace change.

Add const to interr_tbl