On Mon 2006-09-11 12:53:27, Matthew Locke wrote: > 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. If you submit patch series with one bad patch, you are very unlikely to get feedback for the good patches. > >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. That's not what I remember. Please resubmit, then. And cc lkml this time. > 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. No, I'm not ready to ACK. Actually I'd describe it as "broken piece of code noone needs". And IIRC Greg's last question was "what is it good for?". Dave Jones was not too pleased with cpufreq/powerop integration. Intel people explained you broke centrino speedstep. Shall I continue? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
