On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 10:20:25AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > On Mon 2006-09-11 11:57:28, Eugeny S. Mints wrote: > > [snip] > > >> Are you arguing that the cpufreq interface be morphed to support power > > >> op applications? > > > > > > No. I'm arguing that > > > > > > * cpufreq interface should be used for changing cpu frequency > > the patch set i sent out has cpufreq used for changing cpu frequency, > > hasn't it? > > I was talking about kernel<->user interface. > > You did echo low > something to change CPU frequency, IIRC. > > > can we eventually start talking more close to the code rather than > > speculating without it? > > Lets get kernel<->user interface right, first. You'll need to create > Documentation/ entries for your interfaces, eventually, so lets do > that, first, and then talk about code. Oh and it would be nice to cc > lkml on that document, too. New kernel<->user interface is not > decision taken lightly. Is this just trying delay power op getting into the kernel? We are building up / evolving a PM stack from bottom up and you want to the high level interface to be well defined and agreed upon first? I think the kernel user interface is important too but you are asking for a complete solution stack when we are following an evolutionary development process. --mgross
