On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 03:24:19PM -0700, Matthew Locke wrote: > I am a little concerned that none of the cpufreq developers have > responded. I was hoping to get their feedback. I was waiting for the dust to settle before spending a significant amount of time reviewing. I have to admit, the two patchsets thing did confuse me too. (Though I've also been swamped with bugs since I got back from OLS, so I've appreciated the breathing room :) If we're arriving any closer to consensus on whats mergable from the cpufreq side, and what needs more input, I'll find the time to review soon, but there still seems to be ongoing discussion which is why I decided to leave it sort itself out :) > > (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. Sadly powerop is but a tiny piece of the puzzle. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
