I'd say that David's recent note provides some useful information about why his implementation is different. I don't mind seeing an alternate implementation if there's a reason for it, but I have to say that it would have been nice to have the exegesis with or before the patches. scott -----Original Message----- From: linux-pm-bounces at lists.osdl.org [mailto:linux-pm-bounces at lists.osdl.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Locke Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 6:15 PM To: Vitaly Wool Cc: linux-pm at lists.osdl.org; david singleton Subject: Re: [linux-pm] Dynanic On-The-Fly Operating points for PowerOP On Aug 12, 2006, at 1:07 AM, Vitaly Wool wrote: > May I disagree? Having an alternative implementation is never a bad > thing, unless the sides are unable to co-operate ;) Let's try to > compare implementations and their concepts, and benefit from both. What are you disagreeing with? Re-read my statement below. I don't see the reason for another implementation. Rather than guess, I would prefer that Dave tell us why he is submitting a different powerop interface. There must be something driving him to do so. >> Is there >> something specific missing or wrong with the patches we submitted >> that required another set of patches to be developed? By joining in >> the discussion, I mean that you should let us know this information. >> If patches are your method for doing so, then at least provide a >> description of what your patches address that ours does not. Right >> now, its just unclear why there are two different powerop patchsets. >> Matt _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm at lists.osdl.org https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
