On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 10:06:36PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Mon 2006-09-11 12:53:27, Matthew Locke wrote: > > On Sep 11, 2006, at 12:36 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > >>>You did echo low > something to change CPU frequency, IIRC. > > >>My patch set presents two different interfaces built on top of > > >>PowerOP - > > >>cpufreq and sysfs interfaces. So _no_, PowerOP is not all about > > > > > >Okay, drop sysfs interface, and we may have something that can be > > >reviewed. > > > > Sysfs is a separate patch that can rejected. Nothing is stopping > > people from reviewing. > > If you submit patch series with one bad patch, you are very unlikely > to get feedback for the good patches. > > > >Actually that's good idea. Submit powerop without doing _any_ kernel > > >interface changes, so we can see that it makes sense... > > > > Just to be clear this is the approach we did and are doing. > > That's not what I remember. Please resubmit, then. And cc lkml this > time. > > > btw, if people on this list are not ready to ACK PowerOP, I would like > > to hear why before we go elsewhere. It looks like all major issues > > have been addressed by our approach and implementation. > > No, I'm not ready to ACK. Actually I'd describe it as "broken piece of > code noone needs". And IIRC Greg's last question was "what is it good > for?". Dave Jones was not too pleased with cpufreq/powerop > integration. Intel people explained you broke centrino > speedstep. Shall I continue? > Those where directed to the other patch that David Singleton posted. > Pavel > -- > (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek > (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
