On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 11:30:44PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 08:20:45PM -0700, David Singleton wrote: > > > If I had all the existing cpufreq tables transformed > > into operating points I could make a patch that would remove > > the bulk of cpufreq code from the kernel and you'd have > > pretty much the same functionality without the maintenance > > issues the added layers and complexity bring. > > If this is going to fly at all, I think thats where we need to be headed. > Having two parts of the kernel doing the same thing just seems > very wrong to me. > > The other alternative as suggested earlier this week would be archictures > getting to 'opt out' of powerop for their cpufreq drivers where it doesn't > necessarily bring anything but the layer of indirection. > > I'm about to disappear for two weeks for a much needed vacation, but > I'll be interested to see other folks comments/opinions on this > when I get back. I worry about all the users of ondemand and powernow. Whatever happens it needs to be a evolve over time. I don't know how you can have only one power solution that works for HPC and embedded. > > Dave > > -- > http://www.codemonkey.org.uk > _______________________________________________ > linux-pm mailing list > linux-pm at lists.osdl.org > https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
