View Single Post
Posts: 1,808 | Thanked: 4,272 times | Joined on Feb 2011 @ Germany
#1623
Originally Posted by Estel View Post
Using 500 mhz as minimum is more "productive" in terms of powersaving and avoiding wear on CPU (although, the second effect is probably very little). When You're using 500 mhz as min, Your CPU spend much more time @ 0 mhz during idle (every second, it's sitting ~2x longer at 0 mhz, after doing task @ 500 mhz), so you got additional benefit of saving on power leakage.

so, probably it's not about harm, but additional benefit It's also possible, that he doesn't have idea of power leakage etc, just like to have 500 mhz as starting point
That's probably true, but also probably would depend heavily on what exactly is run by the N900 when in idle.

One could also argue that fixing the frequency to, say, 600Mhz (or 900Mhz or whatever) would also provide a benefit (race-to-idle and so), so the phone would only alternate between 0 and 600.

On the other hand, there may be background tasks (e-mail sync, etc.) which hopefully can manage to do their thing without forcing the CPU to jump to higher frequencies (e.g. do the e-mail check at 250Mhz), in which case you would save a bit of power, especially in combination with IGNORE_NICE_LOAD.

When I have some time (lol) I will test with powertop what happens when I set the minimum to 600Mhz instead of 250Mhz and keep the phone idle with WLAN (or EDGE, I normally don't use 3G) and Nokia Messaging running (that's my usual "idle" situation).