On Sep 11, 2006, at 12:36 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: >>> You did echo low > something to change CPU frequency, IIRC. >> My patch set presents two different interfaces built on top of >> PowerOP - >> cpufreq and sysfs interfaces. So _no_, PowerOP is not all about > > Okay, drop sysfs interface, and we may have something that can be > reviewed. > Sysfs is a separate patch that can rejected. Nothing is stopping people from reviewing. > Actually that's good idea. Submit powerop without doing _any_ kernel > interface changes, so we can see that it makes sense... Just to be clear this is the approach we did and are doing. > Your code should be good enough to survive some flaming. I do not > think it is, so yes, I think submitting it to lkml is good > idea. You'll have to do that at some point, anyway. > > (And note lkml only flames you when you are doing something wrong.) Isn't this (linux-pm) the place to discuss power management patches and interfaces? I thought we would get ACK's from the power management maintainers and then the patches go into -mm. Who on lkml needs to be in this discussion that is not on this list? btw, if people on this list are not ready to ACK PowerOP, I would like to hear why before we go elsewhere. It looks like all major issues have been addressed by our approach and implementation. > > Pavel > -- > (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek > (cesky, pictures) > http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html >
