On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 05:17:01PM -0700, Mark Gross wrote: > > cpufreq is broken at the cpufreq_driver interface for embedded > applications needing control over more than one control variable at a > time. > > That interface only supports setting target frequencies, and expanding it > to set target frequencies and voltages is not possible without something > like PowerOP. Adding the types of parameters to cpufreq would likely > make cpufreq a mess. I think we would be better off with something that > coexists with cpufreq, like the powerop patch from Eugeny. > > God help you if you try to use cpufreq on a complex non-PC platform with > multiple power and clock domains that need to be tweaked to squeeze out > competitive battery life. > > Because of the existing user base of cpufreq removing cpufreq will never > happen. No one supporting the PowerOP patch has never recommended > such a thing. However; holding back innovation because of an existing > solution that doesn't support a large class of users seems dumb. But you can't break the existing stuff, and it seems that some of these proposals are doing just that. :( thanks, greg k-h
