Vitaly Wool wrote: > Eugeny, > > On 8/3/06, Eugeny S. Mints <eugeny.mints at gmail.com> wrote: >> Please ignore the patch attached to the previous email and >> consider current patch attached. >> >> This patch contains complete PowerOP Core layer rework. >> Other patches follow shortly. > > Will anyone except drivers/powerop/powerop.c be using > powerop_set_point/powerop_get_point? If yes, why? The main reason is that a layer above PowerOP Core may want: a) to use it's own method to reference operating points and b) implement another algorithm to maintain set of operating points rather than use simple list algorithm provided by PowerOP Core (for example due to performance reasons). I assume that b) may be achieved in the future by implementing a kind of algorithm plugins for PowerOP Core but this will not change already existed api and therefore this improvement may be deferred for the time being. The other minor reason is to allow smooth evolve of existed upper layers (cpufreq): using powerop_set/get on the first step will require less modification of existed code than leveraging named api . It's reasonable to have powerop_get_point() exported for development purposes as well since reasonable implementation of powerop_get_named_active_opint() implies returning the result without accessing underlying hw. Thanks, Eugeny > If no, then why make > them public? > > Thanks, > Vitaly >
