Pavel Machek wrote: > 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. Basically the biggest problem with cpufreq interface is that cpufreq has "chose predefined closest to a given frequency" functionality implemented in the kernel while there is _no_ any reason to have this functionality implemented in the kernel if we have sysfs interface exported by PowerOP in place - you just _have_ to keep all possible functionality out of the kernel. CPufreq interface is just subset of sysfs interface provided by PowerOP and _must_ be implemented in userspace on top of sysfs interface - this is the proper way to scape duplication. Such issue with cpufreq<->kernel userspace interface is consequence of the fact that cpufreq implements incorrect design of PM stack layers and interfaces. PowerOP solves this issues as well. > >> - The PowerOP interface was discussed in detail on this list and we >> haven't heard any negative comments. > > Eh? Was I on different list?vb dfgdfv > >> - 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. PM stack is too complex and heavy part to go in such pieces thru lkml. i expect all linux pm experts to be on this list Eugeny > Pavel >
