> From: Pavel Machek [mailto:pavel at ucw.cz] > > > >>- 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. --- Just as a data point, "keeping the cpufreq interface" is irrelevant to a number of us, because we configure it out of the system. I'm not really arguing that we should get rid of an existing kernel interface, but I don't see any reason why we shouldn't be able to have a separately configurable interface if cpufreq doesn't meet our needs. Note that Matthew is not arguing even that and expresses apparent contentment with cpufreq's interface. Regards, scott
