From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ducrot Bruno Subject: Re: speedstep-smi into -ac ? Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 14:30:25 +0200 Sender: cpufreq-bounces@www.linux.org.uk Message-ID: <20030908123025.GL408@poupinou.org> References: <87ekywzjvm.wl%miura@da-cha.org> <20030904232555.GA8650@brodo.de> <87bru0yutb.wl%miura@da-cha.org> <20030905065433.GC4003@brodo.de> <20030905084645.GO4401@poupinou.org> <20030907185503.GB21291@brodo.de> <20030908083255.GJ408@poupinou.org> <20030908092317.GB1258@brodo.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030908092317.GB1258@brodo.de> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: cpufreq-bounces@www.linux.org.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Dominik Brodowski Cc: Hiroshi Miura , "'cpufreq@www linux org uk'" On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 11:23:17AM +0200, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:32:55AM +0200, Ducrot Bruno wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 08:55:03PM +0200, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 10:46:45AM +0200, Ducrot Bruno wrote: > > > > Warn: I have not implemented the .resume callback. It need to > > > > be done correctly in core at first, and it seems to be not so > > > > well designed at first read (at core, not in the driver). > > > > > > Why? > > > > > > > There is no restore like stuff in 2.4 backport, nor in ac (or > > I'm blind). > > Actually, I meant "why do you consider the ->resume implementation to be 'not > so well designed'"? I'm talking about 2.4, not 2.6. If I want to make the ->resume stuff in 2.4, there is a need to make something like drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq::cpufreq_resume in 2.4 backport at first. -- Ducrot Bruno -- Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? -- Don't know. Don't care.