Hi! > I know its confusing having oppoint (from Dave Singleton) and powerop > being discussed at the same time. However, I believe we (PowerOP) > have Yes, it is. > - PowerOP is only one layer (towards the bottom) in a power management > solution. > - PowerOP does *not* replace cpufreq PowerOP provides userland interface for changing processor frequency. That's bad -- duplicate interface. > - The PowerOP interface was discussed in detail on this list and we > haven't heard any negative comments. Eh? Was I on different list? > - We are not advocating the integration with sleep states. We want to > get the PowerOP interface accepted and then we can build on it. Good. > We have a few more comments from Greg to take care of and we can add a > Documentation/ file. Then I think its time to get the PowerOP patches > in the queue for acceptance. Any comments about this? Well, you'll only get good interface review when you have Documentation/ , and it needs to go to lkml before it goes to any queues. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
