Greg, perhaps I need to back up a bit. I wasn't submitting these patches for inclusion into Linux. I was presenting them to the people discussing how power management might evolve in Linux. This patch is just a toy prototype to use as a strawman to discuss how power management infrastructures in Linux might evolve to be more: a) unified and b) simplified for both kernel and user space. The Documentation/powerop.txt included in the powerop-core.patch tries to describe what the patch is attempting to do and how it works. David On Jul 28, 2006, at 5:45 PM, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 05:38:11PM -0700, david singleton wrote: >> >> On Jul 28, 2006, at 4:38 PM, Greg KH wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 03:31:41PM -0700, david singleton wrote: >>>> Here is a patch that implements a version of the PowerOp concept. >>> >>> Any chance of breaking this up into logical patches that do one thing >>> at >>> a time so it can be reviewed better? >>> >>> thanks, >>> >>> greg k-h >>> >> Here's powerop-core.patch, powerop-cpufreq.patch and >> powerop-x86-centrino.patch. > > Um, no, that's not how kernel patches are submitted. How about one per > email, with a description of what they do, inline so we can quote them > in a message (and actually read them in the original message...) > > See patches posted here by others as examples of what is expected, and > see Documentation/SubmittingPatches for more details. > > thanks, > > greg k-h
