From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Jones Subject: Re: Dynamic frequency governor Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:10:11 +0100 Sender: cpufreq-bounces@www.linux.org.uk Message-ID: <20031020181011.GA27053@redhat.com> References: <20031020170010.GF21438@redhat.com> <20031020172503.GE13989@poupinou.org> <20031020173205.GG21438@redhat.com> <20031020173509.GF13989@poupinou.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031020173509.GF13989@poupinou.org> 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: Ducrot Bruno Cc: "Moore, Robert" , cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 07:35:09PM +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. It's not outside the realms of possibility that it's me that was mistaken. I've been wrong before, and no doubt will be again at some point 8-) I'd like to be proven wrong on this one 8-) Dave -- Dave Jones http://www.codemonkey.org.uk