On Sat, 2012-02-11 at 15:33 +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > Having to actually wait for this in software is quite ridiculous. > > Well, it's also not terribly hard. Having to schedule from the scheduler is. Which is exactly the situation you'll end up with if you want scheduler driven cpufreq, which I thought everybody wanted because polling state sucks. > There's use cases for having this > stuff offloaded but if you're not doing that stuff then why deal with > the complication of designing the hardware? Because doing it in software is more expensive? Penny-wise pound-foolish like thing.. you make the software requirements more complex, which results in more bugs (more cost in debugging), more runtime (for doing the 'software' thing), less power savings. Esp since all this uC/system-controller stuff is already available and validated. -- 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
