|
2010-04-12
, 22:39
|
Posts: 1,751 |
Thanked: 844 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
@ Sweden
|
#2542
|
ULV & LV by titan
I discovered something about my device : using the ULV kernel it bricks when using the 850Mhz max freq but boots up normal when raising it up to 900Mhz.
been using it for almost half an hour now and it is stable.
on the other hand the LV kernel works great at any speed - so going back to the LV kernel
The Following User Says Thank You to AlMehdi For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2010-04-12
, 22:43
|
Posts: 1,751 |
Thanked: 844 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
@ Sweden
|
#2543
|
I currently use a normal volt 125~800 kernel. It has been very stable, so I am wondering if any advantage in the newer kernels?
BTW, when 1.2 is finally released, will it be safe to update with the current kernel, or will I need to go to the "stock" first?
I installed my kernel using the N900's Xterm, rather than Flash 3.5. My info shows complete, where as some lost their "about" info.
|
2010-04-12
, 22:47
|
Posts: 22 |
Thanked: 15 times |
Joined on Apr 2010
@ Israel
|
#2544
|
|
2010-04-12
, 22:52
|
Posts: 1,751 |
Thanked: 844 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
@ Sweden
|
#2545
|
|
2010-04-12
, 22:55
|
|
Posts: 324 |
Thanked: 65 times |
Joined on Jun 2008
@ FL
|
#2546
|
So hard to choose!
Today with ideal kernel, max frec=950... 2 batteries at work (8 am unplugged from car, 2:30 battery change, 7 pm plugged again)
With Lehto 125-950-500, a day without change of battery.
I can assume than user habits are delimiting battery life, anyway, nv kernel beating xlv... how is it possible? If 500 xlv=125 nv, and Lehto 950 ov> ideal 950 ov... ¿?¿?¿?¿
So again reinstaling 125-950-500... I'm getting crazy!!
|
2010-04-12
, 23:02
|
Posts: 171 |
Thanked: 114 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
|
#2547
|
#!/bin/sh awk '{print "\nCurrent frequency: "$1/1000" MHz\n"}' /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq awk '{print "Minimum frequency: "$1/1000" MHz\n"}' /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_min_freq awk '{print "Maximum frequency: "$1/1000" MHz\n"}' /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_max_freq tis1=`awk '{SUM += $2} END {printf("%.0f",SUM/1000)}' /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/stats/time_in_state` idle0=`awk '{printf ("%.0f",$1/1000)}' /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpuidle/state0/time` idle1=`awk '{printf ("%.0f",$1/1000)}' /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpuidle/state1/time` idle2=`awk '{printf ("%.0f",$1/1000)}' /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpuidle/state2/time` idle3=`awk '{printf ("%.0f",$1/1000)}' /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpuidle/state3/time` totaltime=$(($idle0+$idle1+$idle2+$idle3+$tis1)) echo -e "FREQUENCY\tUSED" awk '{printf (($1/1000)" MHz \t")};{if ($2 == 0) printf "0 %\n"; else printf ("%.3f %\n",($2/10)/"'"$totaltime"'")}' /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/stats/time_in_state echo ""
|
2010-04-12
, 23:03
|
Posts: 22 |
Thanked: 15 times |
Joined on Apr 2010
@ Israel
|
#2549
|
Start with the max_freq on 810mhz and then test the other frequencies with the "temp command". That is how i did it. I have noticed it can be unstable for me on the higher frequencies.
|
2010-04-12
, 23:13
|
Posts: 946 |
Thanked: 1,650 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Germany
|
#2550
|
wget http://maemory.com/N900/overclock/generic/kernel-maemo_2.6.28-maemo21_armel.deb wget http://maemory.com/N900/overclock/generic/kernel-modules-maemo_2.6.28-maemo21_armel.deb wget http://maemory.com/N900/overclock/generic/kernel-flasher-maemo_2.6.28-maemo21_armel.deb
# cat /sys/power/sr_vdd1_opps_vsel 30 30 38 48 54 48 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 67 72 echo "30 30 38 48 54 48 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 67 72" > /sys/power/sr_vdd1_opps_vsel
stock/normal kernel 30 = 0x1e = 0.975V x 0 MHz = 0 30 = 0x1e = 0.975V x 125 MHz = 119 38 = 0x26 = 1.075V x 250 MHz = 289 48 = 0x30 = 1.200V x 500 MHz = 720 54 = 0x36 = 1.275V x 550 MHz = 894 60 = 0x3c = 1.350V x 600 MHz = 1094 60 = 0x3c = 1.350V x 720 MHz = 1312 60 = 0x3c = 1.350V x 750 MHz = 1367 60 = 0x3c = 1.350V x 810 MHz = 1476 60 = 0x3c = 1.350V x 850 MHz = 1549 60 = 0x3c = 1.350V x 900 MHz = 1640 60 = 0x3c = 1.350V x 950 MHz = 1731 XLV kernel: 30 = 0x1e = 0.975V x 0 MHz = 0 20 = 0x14 = 0.850V x 125 MHz = 90 30 = 0x1e = 0.975V x 250 MHz = 238 33 = 0x21 = 1.012V x 500 MHz = 513 38 = 0x26 = 1.075V x 550 MHz = 636 38 = 0x26 = 1.075V x 600 MHz = 693 45 = 0x2d = 1.163V x 700 MHz = 946 45 = 0x2d = 1.163V x 750 MHz = 1014 48 = 0x30 = 1.200V x 810 MHz = 1166 48 = 0x30 = 1.200V x 850 MHz = 1224 54 = 0x36 = 1.275V x 900 MHz = 1463 54 = 0x36 = 1.275V x 950 MHz = 1544 60 = 0x3c = 1.350V x 1000 MHz = 1823 67 = 0x43 = 1.438V x 1100 MHz = 2273 72 = 0x48 = 1.500V x 1150 MHz = 2588
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to titan For This Useful Post: | ||
|
BTW, when 1.2 is finally released, will it be safe to update with the current kernel (on device now), or will I need to go to the "stock" first?
I installed my kernel using the N900's Xterm, rather than Flash 3.5. My info shows complete, where as some lost their "about" info.
Last edited by Rushmore; 2010-04-12 at 22:40.