On 08/05/2012 11:33 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday, July 26, 2012, Andre Przywara wrote:
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg@xxxxxxxxxx>
These chips are now supported by acpi-cpufreq, so we can delete all the
code handling them.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Garrett <mjg@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx>
Would it be very wrong/confusing to keep that support in the powernow-k8
driver for the time being, perhaps making it print a message that the ACPI
driver is recommended for those chips?
Why would you like to do this? Are you concerned about regressions? Or
do you just want to avoid the introduction of the doomed "cpb" feature
in acpi-cpufreq?
I am not sure if keeping support in powernow-k8 would just make people
use it still in the future. At least if it would just load easily as before.
One idea could be to keep the code around, but only load on family 10h
if a force_fam10h or so command line option is provided. But again this
could just push distributions to provide this option to avoid the
transition.
One of my motivations was to keep only _one_ driver around, the code
removal of the fam10h support from powernow-k8 supports this.
If you insist, I can keep the code in powernow-k8, but it probably
wouldn't receive any support anymore and would increase confusion on the
user side.
Thanks for the review,
Andre.
--
Andre Przywara
AMD-Operating System Research Center (OSRC), Dresden, Germany
--
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
