On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 08:35:37PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 04:50:25PM -0700, Mark Gross wrote: > > The PowerOP patch has nothing to do with the removal of cpufreq. You > > may be confusing this work with the david signleton patch. > > I am totally confused about who is working on what, and what provides > what. > > Can someone make quick cheat-sheet that shows the different > developers/companies and projects here? The fact that it's impossible > to keep this straight in the first place does not bode well... Power-OP: Matt, Eugeny, Igor, myself to a much lesser extent Oppoint: David Interested parties to getting operating point concepts into the main line kernel are CELF and MLI members. > > Or, can each of the different projects send a _short_, 1 paragraph, 4 > sentance maximum summary of the different things. Think of it as your > "elevator pitch". The different multi-page summaries ware making my > eyes glaze over... > CE and embedded Linux users have not been able to use cpufreq, mostly because those platforms don't have ACPI like FW for controlling all the power parameters NOT exposed on PC's and laptops, where the PM control possibilities are much more exposed to the OS requiring OS support to leverage. The notion of operating point has become very popular in the CE /embedded space. Some variant of it is used in every CE device and there is a need to get some common way to tickle the platform PM for non PC hardware. PowerOP is the derived from Operating Point interface portion of the DPM and is an attempt to provide a common way for this. It started life as a patch that came out about 1 year ago by Todd Poyner. This version of PowerOP has been a collaboration of a group of folks that got together at the PM-Summit last April. Oppoint is also derived from the interface portion of DPM but goes farther to include more of DPM, causes confusion and controversy and was pushed at a bad time. It would be nice if the Oppoint patch be re-submitted as a patch to the PowerOP patch once it gets some traction in the MM tree. > thanks, > > greg k-h
