FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux General Discussion

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 10-10-2011, 12:28 PM
Neal Haslam
 
Default no ACPI estimate in powertop with latest kernels

Hello everyone,

Powertop reports "no ACPI power usage estimate available" with x86_64
kernels 3.0.6-1 and 3.0.6-2.

Downgrading to kernel 3.0.4-1 restored power estimates. Older kernels had
always worked in the past.

Processor is Intel i3, quad core, in a ThinkPad Edge 14 running Gnome 3.2
fully upgraded daily.
--
Neal
 
Old 10-10-2011, 12:49 PM
Mauro Santos
 
Default no ACPI estimate in powertop with latest kernels

On 10-10-2011 13:28, Neal Haslam wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> Powertop reports "no ACPI power usage estimate available" with x86_64
> kernels 3.0.6-1 and 3.0.6-2.
>
> Downgrading to kernel 3.0.4-1 restored power estimates. Older kernels had
> always worked in the past.
>
> Processor is Intel i3, quad core, in a ThinkPad Edge 14 running Gnome 3.2
> fully upgraded daily.
> --
> Neal
>

I guess this will make it clear, I was looking for it too so serves as a
reference to me

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=127795
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/25845

--
Mauro Santos
 
Old 10-11-2011, 04:20 AM
Tom Gundersen
 
Default no ACPI estimate in powertop with latest kernels

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:28 PM, Neal Haslam <nrhaslam@gmail.com> wrote:
> Powertop reports "no ACPI power usage estimate available" with x86_64
> kernels 3.0.6-1 and 3.0.6-2.
>
> Downgrading to kernel 3.0.4-1 restored power estimates. *Older kernels had
> always worked in the past.
>
> Processor is Intel i3, quad core, in a ThinkPad Edge 14 running Gnome 3.2
> fully upgraded daily.

Have you tried with powertop2 instead? powetop is not maintained any
longer, so we should probably get around to updating to powertop2 at
some point... (I have been meaning to).

-t
 
Old 10-11-2011, 11:06 AM
Neal Haslam
 
Default no ACPI estimate in powertop with latest kernels

@Tom
Thankyou for pointing out powertop2. It allows for more control than the
original powertop. The URL in the PKGBUILD is not correct because of
kernel.org's changes. Googling for a new location was easy enough.

@Mauro
Thankyou for the information.
--
Neal

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:20 AM, Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:28 PM, Neal Haslam <nrhaslam@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Powertop reports "no ACPI power usage estimate available" with x86_64
> > kernels 3.0.6-1 and 3.0.6-2.
> >
> > Downgrading to kernel 3.0.4-1 restored power estimates. Older kernels
> had
> > always worked in the past.
> >
> > Processor is Intel i3, quad core, in a ThinkPad Edge 14 running Gnome 3.2
> > fully upgraded daily.
>
> Have you tried with powertop2 instead? powetop is not maintained any
> longer, so we should probably get around to updating to powertop2 at
> some point... (I have been meaning to).
>
> -t
>
 
Old 10-11-2011, 12:26 PM
Scott Lawrence
 
Default no ACPI estimate in powertop with latest kernels

On a related note - I also get this "no ACPI estimate" error, but only
when my laptop is not on battery power. When unplugged, it gives
estimates as desired.


Anyone know why this would be?

--
Scott Lawrence
 
Old 10-11-2011, 12:39 PM
Thomas Bächler
 
Default no ACPI estimate in powertop with latest kernels

Am 11.10.2011 14:26, schrieb Scott Lawrence:
> On a related note - I also get this "no ACPI estimate" error, but only
> when my laptop is not on battery power. When unplugged, it gives
> estimates as desired.
>
> Anyone know why this would be?

Powertop measures the power requirement using the decharge rate of your
battery.
 
Old 10-11-2011, 12:40 PM
Scott Lawrence
 
Default no ACPI estimate in powertop with latest kernels

On 10/11/11 08:39, Thomas Bächler wrote:

Powertop measures the power requirement using the decharge rate of your
battery.



Ah, of course. Thanks.

(For some reason, I assumed there was an actual hardware bit dedicated
to providing this estimate.)


--
Scott Lawrence

Tue Oct 11 16:30:03 2011
Return-path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-48066-tom=linux-archive.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Envelope-to: tom@linux-archive.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:32:40 +0300
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80]:51668 helo=lists.gentoo.org)
by s2.java-tips.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <gentoo-dev+bounces-48066-tom=linux-archive.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1RDbVe-0005s3-8s
for tom@linux-archive.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:32:38 +0300
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5376721C22B;
Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:41:46 +0000 (UTC)
X-Original-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Delivered-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B76A21C063
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:39:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.0.199] (balkh.flp.tu-berlin.de [130.149.113.89])
(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
(Authenticated sender: chithanh)
by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 544EE1B4010
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:39:32 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <4E9438ED.2050601@gentoo.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:39:09 +0200
From: =?UTF-8?B?Q2jDrS1UaGFuaCBDaHJpc3RvcGhlciBOZ3V54buFbg==? <chithanh@gentoo.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110902 Firefox/6.0 SeaMonkey/2.3.1
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Lastrite: media-gfx/pngcrush
References: <4E900E3E.2070202@gentoo.org> <CAEdQ38HPgr87pe_eRqeScT050vfmUcwbpKT2-OoD1TcUWwP34w@mail.gmail.com> <4E905C48.20008@gentoo.org> <CAGfcS_kk_WXeNotVX+9XVWSyqg52AMkOK0_-7o8QgVZaRU2Jiw@mail.gmail.com> <20111008151336.GN704@gentoo.org> <4E906D3B.2090200@gentoo.org> <20111010210043.4b31d55e@gentoo.org>
In-Reply-To: <20111010210043.4b31d55e@gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Ryan Hill schrieb:

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 18:33:15 +0300
Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:


It's not like fastened lastriting hasn't happened before. I question
your motives in picking this particular one. It's not like I expected
cookies for the time I've put into this porting effort, but not this
"attack" either.

Then stop trying to remove packages that have an active maintainer. I could
have sworn that was written down somewhere.


I found two instances of it
1. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/recruiters/mentor.xml
2. Ebuild quiz, question 13


Best regards,
ChÃ*-Thanh Christopher Nguyá»?n
 
Old 10-25-2011, 06:59 PM
clemens fischer
 
Default no ACPI estimate in powertop with latest kernels

On Tue-2011/10/11-13:06 Neal Haslam wrote:

> @Tom
> Thankyou for pointing out powertop2. It allows for more control than
> the original powertop. The URL in the PKGBUILD is not correct because
> of kernel.org's changes. Googling for a new location was easy enough.

If it was so easy, what was so difficult about posting the link here?


clemens
 
Old 10-25-2011, 09:19 PM
Neal Haslam
 
Default no ACPI estimate in powertop with latest kernels

@clemens
Thank you for pointing out my oversight.

There is a patched powertop2 in the AUR with the correct URL in the
PKGBUILD.
--
Neal


On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:59 PM, clemens fischer <
ino-news@spotteswoode.dnsalias.org> wrote:

> On Tue-2011/10/11-13:06 Neal Haslam wrote:
>
> > @Tom
> > Thankyou for pointing out powertop2. It allows for more control than
> > the original powertop. The URL in the PKGBUILD is not correct because
> > of kernel.org's changes. Googling for a new location was easy enough.
>
> If it was so easy, what was so difficult about posting the link here?
>
>
> clemens
>
>
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 02:20 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org