On Mon 2006-09-11 17:36:33, Preece Scott-PREECE wrote: > > > 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. Configurable interfaces are evil, and I do not think you can push such patch. You have developed your own little interface that suits your needs -- and that's fine -- but now you are trying to push it into mainline... and that is not, because those interfaces were not really designed to work together. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
