On Aug 14, 2006, at 3:46 PM, Dave Jones wrote: > 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 :) Yeah, I understand that. I'm still catching up as well. > > 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 :) I think we are at the stage of need more input on the last set of Eugeny's patches. (the ones I point to in my email) The cpufreq patches, so far, are more for example. We need a bit of work before they are ready for merging. However, I would prefer to have your feedback now rather than later. > >>> (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. Cheer up guys. Power management will get better one piece at a time; just like the rest of Linux:) > > Dave > > -- > http://www.codemonkey.org.uk >
