> > > I think I'm listening to arguments just as much as you guys are! We just > > > disagree. What are your criteria for "a clean interface"? Why do you > > > think that n separate set-parameter() interfaces, with no consistency > > > relationship between them, are cleaner than one define-op() and one > > > set-op() interface? > > > > Because we already have cpufreq-set-parameter() interface and > > enter-suspend-state() interface. We can't really get rid of them. > > > This is true. Yet todays cpufreq interface is not up to the job of > providing power management for many embedded platforms. > > If you add set-op() replacing both cpufreq-set-parameter() and > > enter-suspend-state(), we'll end up with two different interfaces for > > each interface; that's considered "mess". > > Why can't they coexist? > > Are you arguing that the cpufreq interface be morphed to support power > op applications? No. I'm arguing that * cpufreq interface should be used for changing cpu frequency * additional interfaces should be created for changing memory clock etc. * existing interfaces should be used for turning devices on/off (and new ones created when old ones do not exist) * powerop should take a look what userspace wants, and just close closest point to that. Pavel -- Thanks, Sharp!
