From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Dec 16 20:53:32 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FFCC16A41F
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 20:53:32 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from oberman@es.net)
Received: from postal1.es.net (postal1.es.net [198.128.3.205])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0556143D5F
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 20:53:31 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from oberman@es.net)
Received: from ptavv.es.net ([198.128.4.29])
	by postal1.es.net (Postal Node 1) with ESMTP (SSL) id IBA74465;
	Fri, 16 Dec 2005 12:53:28 -0800
Received: from ptavv (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by ptavv.es.net (Tachyon Server) with ESMTP id 4D7BF5D09;
	Fri, 16 Dec 2005 12:53:27 -0800 (PST)
To: Craig Boston <craig@feniz.gank.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:29:39 CST."
	<20051216202938.GA36252@nowhere> 
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 12:53:27 -0800
From: "Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net>
Message-Id: <20051216205327.4D7BF5D09@ptavv.es.net>
Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org,
	Melvyn Sopacua <freebsd.stable@melvyn.homeunix.org>
Subject: Re: HEADS UP: Release schedule for 2006 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 20:53:32 -0000

> Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:29:39 -0600
> From: Craig Boston <craig@feniz.gank.org>
> Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
> 
> > -cpu0: <ACPI CPU (4 Cx states)> on acpi0
> > +cpu0: <ACPI CPU> on acpi0
> > 
> > Q: Guessing that's a formatting difference, rather then 6.x not recognizing 
> > the states (sysctl hw.acpi.cpu.cx_supported confirms 4 states)
> 
> Not sure on this, but you're probably better off using EST anyway as I
> think it gives you more control over the processor frequency.

No. There is no conflict between Cx states and EST. Cx states specifies
how deeply the CPU will sleep when idle. EST controls processor speed
and voltage. In most cases, your REALLY want to use both of these. They
are very significant in saving power. (Of course, USB tends to limit the
effectiveness of Cx states. I need to run without USB to get really good
battery life and to make suspend (S3) really ut power drain.
-- 
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
E-mail: oberman@es.net			Phone: +1 510 486-8634