On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 12:00:20PM +0100, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > Interesting approach, but seems to be quite different from what "ondemand" > does at the moment. And, as David Niemi pointed out, it seems to be more > Intel-specific. Therefore, what do you think about adding this different > algorithm as a different governor, and keep the "ondemand" algorithm more or > less as it is? I'm hesitant to merge more governors. (We already have too many imo). The userspace logic for automatically deciding which is the best one to use is already pretty hairy, so any additional ones at this point would have to be accompanied with some really compelling reasons why the existing ones can't be fixed in an acceptable manner. Dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
