Pavel, On 9/14/06, Pavel Machek <pavel at ucw.cz> wrote: > > > Pavel, > > > > > operating points it is possible to implement the "cpufreq frequency > > > > selection logic" in user space and having such functionality in the kernel > > > > just violates the main rule of having everything possible outside of the > > > > kernel. > > > > > > You got the rules wrong. "Keep the code out of kernel" is important > > > rule, but probably not the main one. > > > > from aside, it looks like you're choosing 'rules' and assign then > > 'priorities' in a too arbitrary way which is by a strange accident > > fits your point of view best of all. > > May I remind you that Linux world is not only laptops and Sharp Zaurus? ;) > > Actually, laptops and zauruses seem to be the only "interesting" > machines from pm perspective. Then there are Motorola cellphones, but > Motorola tried hard not to enable users changing kernel... so they are > irrelevant. Well, I never said Zaurus was no good :) Please don't forget about Nokia 770 and its possible follow-ups. Also, please keep in mind that if we come to a joint PM solution that is in mainline, Motorola will use it... and will be contributing changes back to the community. If there was a PM solution adopted in mainline which fit the needs of embedded devices, more vendors would turn to using Linux. I. e., what prevents Sharp from making a open-code Lnux-based cell phone? I do think that the absense of PM framework suitable for embedded is one of the main engineering reasons... So let us broaden our views and work together :) Vitaly
