On Aug 14, 2006, at 1:07 PM, Greg KH wrote: > I'm seeing a lot of threads without very much resolution on the > differing patches that are flying around here in regards to the rework > of the power management stuff (not suspend stuff...) > RIght now there are two sets of patches with the name powerop. One set (from Eugeny and myself) is focused on getting agreement for the PowerOP interface and operating point definition. I believe the last patchset Eugeny submitted as incorporated all the comments about PowerOP so far. I don't think integrating PowerOP with suspend (/sys/power/state) is appropriate at this time (as others agreed). I would rather see PowerOP accepted and used by cpufreq before we tackle suspend/resume. The other set posted by Dave Singleton is geared towards showing how PowerOP can be used by both cpufreq and suspend code. It contains lots of features that have not been reviewed or discussed. > So, should I just grab a random patchset from here and add it to my > trees and get it into -mm for testing, or does someone want to possibly > guide me to the set that everyone seems to agree apon? No, please don't grab a random patchset:) IMO, the patches from Eugeny and myself are the ones to grab and put into -mm. We were hoping to get some feedback on the set posted here http://lists.osdl.org/pipermail/linux-pm/2006-August/003196.html but I think the two patchsets have confused the situation. We are working on the next rev of these patches which will mostly be some clean up and tighter integration with cpufreq. Our plan was to get the next rev out before we request inclusion in -mm. However if you are ready to look at and play with patches. Start with the ones at the link above. I am a little concerned that none of the cpufreq developers have responded. I was hoping to get their feedback. > > Or, is there two (or more) competing patch sets here that need to get > resolved? I don't view the two patchsets as competing. Eugeny and I are focused on getting the basic building block necessary to do advanced frequency and voltage scaling accepted. If we can get PowerOP in the mainline, then we can add more feature by feature. As Dave outlined in his email, his patches are a starting point for further discussion about integrating with other subsystems and additional features. Let's focus on getting PowerOP accepted by starting with Eugeny's patches which provides powerop as a separate component and integration with cpufreq. > (If you can't tell I'm getting a bit annoyed at having to tell people > all the time that yes, power management on Linux is bad, and yes, > people > are working on it, but no, I have no idea when it will ever see the > light of day...) Well, we are working on it. I think we had some really good discussion/feedback over the last weeks and we are almost there. Unfortunately, the discussion tapered off recently when we needed some final feedback. Probably related to having two patchsets with the name powerop. Let's try to get something acceptable in -mm over the next couple days. Thanks Matt > > thanks, > > greg k-h > _______________________________________________ > linux-pm mailing list > linux-pm at lists.osdl.org > https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm >
