> >>- 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 No, there is reason to keep that in kernel -- so that cpufreq userspace interface can be kept, and so that resulting kernel<->user interface is not ugly. > of the fact that cpufreq implements incorrect design of PM stack layers and > interfaces. PowerOP solves this issues as well. Actually I believe that cpufreq implements correct design and PowerOP got it wrong. > >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 "We are too lazy to make the code clean enough / well enough explained to survive lkml review". Your interface impacts everyone, so everyone should have chance to comment on it. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
