Bug#702527: installation-reports: No CpuFrequencyScaling with Wheezy RC1
Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> writes:
> On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 22:42 +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
>> Christian PERRIER <bubulle@debian.org> writes:
>>
>> > Quoting cl (topolm5678@mail.ru):
>> >> Package: installation-reports
>> >> Severity: normal
>> >>
>> >> Dear Maintainer,
>> >>
>> >> I have downloaded debian-wheezy-live-rc1-amd64-gnome-desktop.iso and installed.
>> >> After the installation I was wondering why my cpu fan was constantly spinning and I found out the CPUfrequencyScaling is not enabled due to that the cpufrequtils package is not installed. After manually installing and configuring cpufrequency everything is fine. As a lot of users are working on laptops it will be really great if cpufrequency could be enabled by default. Thank you.
>> >
>> > Sigh, there are so many different power management things that
>> > choosing among them is a nightmare.
>> >
>> > Did cpufrequtils need configuration to do what you want? If so, then
>> > it would probably better having it to provide a good default
>> > configuration, then we might consider adding it to the "laptop" task
>> > in addition to:
>>
>> No cpufrequtils does not need any configuration. It works well out of
>> the box. And it's not only usefull on laptops but on any hardware with a
>> modern (x86/amd64) processor. It also helps saving power on desktops and
>> servers.
>
> cpufreq drivers are now auto-loaded and te default governor is ondemand,
> so most users won't need cpufrequtils installed any more.
Thanks Ben for pointing this out. Did not know it's enabled by default
now. I just checked and can confirm that the ondemand governor and
acpi-cpufreq driver are set even withouth "cpufrequtils". So this is
probably much less needed than for squeeze.
Tested on a Thinkpad X200.
Gaudenz
>
> Ben.
>
> --
> Ben Hutchings
> Always try to do things in chronological order;
> it's less confusing that way.
--
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter.
Try again. Fail again. Fail better.
~ Samuel Beckett ~
Reply to: