On Sep 11, 2006, at 8:31 PM, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 02:50:04PM -0700, Matthew Locke wrote: >> >> I would like to get a plan in place for acceptance with the power >> management guys before we move this to lkml. > > Sure, let's see something here that we all agree on. You have yet to > achieve that, so you still have work to do. > >> I propose that we submit the current set of PowerOP patches plus final >> few changes (from Greg's comments and a Documentation/ file). > > Nothing is keeping you from sending these to the list now. Please do > so. The only thing stopping us is time:) It will happen soon. > >> The patches do not affect anyone else. The sysfs interface is >> optional. > > If so, it will be interesting to see why the code is even needed, I > await the patches :) PowerOP patches have been submitted to this list several times for review. You even reviewed a version or two. The main comments we are addressing are small issues such as add a file in Documentation and module reference counting. Not much else will change so you have the code. The cpufreq<->PowerOP integration patches have also been submitted but no one has responded to those. Just read the other emails. I will stop here. It's time to reset the discussion again. > >> If necessary Eugeny and I will maintain userspace interface patches >> outside the mainline for now. > > Why? What good would the in-kernel patches be then if it can't be used > except for some external patches? That's not acceptable. And the user > interface has been tied to the other kernel code, so I think you need > them both, but am willing to be convinced otherwise. I think so too. This offer is in response to Pavel's comment that PowerOP is ok for in-kernel usage but not userspace. > >> Will any of the power management maintainers ACK this plan and then >> ACK the patches? > > Let's see the code please. > >> If no one here is willing to ACK, then I don't see what will change by >> submitting to lkml. > > Let's get this agreed on first, I feel that you still have some way to > go here. > > Sending stuff to lkml is fine too, you should be doing that for such a > core change anyway. I don't see why you can't do that at the same > time, > it's just an extra email on the CC: line... > > thanks, > > greg k-h >
