Re: About bug# 484779

[maximilian attems <max@stro.at>]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Javier Vasquez wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Bug# 484779 is affecting me, since I don NOT use desktop environment
> (neither KDE nor GNome).  There are several tools I use for power
> management (laptop Compaq 8510w), between them a couple of tools I
> use:
> 
> acpitool

use acpi:
 acpi -V
     Battery 0: Discharging, 24%, 00:01:05 remaining
  AC Adapter 0: off-line
     Thermal 0: ok, 54.0 degrees C
     Thermal 1: ok, 47.0 degrees C
     Cooling 0: LCD 8 of 15
     Cooling 1: LCD 0 of 15
     Cooling 2: Processor 0 of 10
     Cooling 3: Processor 0 of 10

> cpufreqd

not as good as the in kernel ones, just install cpufrequtils
 
> Both look for /proc/acpi/battery contents, on to report battery
> information (-B) and the other to decide how to regulate the
> processors frequency.  The case of cpufreq is really fatal to me under
> kernel image 2.6.25-2-amd64 (# CONFIG_ACPI_PROCFS_POWER is not set),
> since as there's no battery info under /proc/acpi/battery, cpufreq no
> longer has criteria to decide, and thus stops deciding forcing slowest
> frequency (for me the rank of frequencies goes from 800MHz to 2.2GHz,
> so cpufreq forces this 2.2GHz on AC power @ 800MHz, how sad can that
> be?), see:
> 
> Jul 21 11:07:34 jevv-ofic cpufreqd: acpi_battery_init        : error,
> acpi_battery module not compiled or inserted (/proc/acpi/battery/: No
> such file or directory)?
> Jul 21 11:07:34 jevv-ofic cpufreqd: acpi_battery_init        : exiting.
> 
> The result of the mentioned bug is to merge it to a KDE one, which
> doesn't have anything to do with acpitool neither cpufreqd.
> 
> I order to get my laptop working I had to recompile the kernel:

cloning the report and reassigning to those packages.

best regards

-- 
maks