From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ducrot Bruno Subject: Re: Dynamic frequency governor Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:35:09 +0200 Sender: cpufreq-bounces@www.linux.org.uk Message-ID: <20031020173509.GF13989@poupinou.org> References: <20031020170010.GF21438@redhat.com> <20031020172503.GE13989@poupinou.org> <20031020173205.GG21438@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031020173205.GG21438@redhat.com> 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: Dave Jones Cc: "Moore, Robert" , cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 06:32:05PM +0100, Dave Jones wrote: > On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 07:25:03PM +0200, Ducrot Bruno wrote: > > > AFAIR, there is no patent if wide system policy which is what Bob want > > to implement. Only per-process (which is the most fun unfortunately) are > > patented. That need to be confirmed though (by Alan ?). > > I was under the understanding that there was a patent on > "recalculate cpu frequency based on idle time" too. > Grumble. I was probably mistaken. Sorry. -- Ducrot Bruno -- Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? -- Don't know. Don't care.