Re: So, what's the status on the recent patches here?

[Mark Gross <mgross@linux.intel.com>]

On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 11:30:44PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 08:20:45PM -0700, David Singleton wrote:
> 
>  > If I had all the existing cpufreq tables transformed
>  > into operating points I could make a patch that would remove
>  > the bulk of cpufreq code from the kernel and you'd have
>  > pretty much the same functionality without the maintenance
>  > issues the added layers and complexity bring.
> 
> If this is going to fly at all, I think thats where we need to be headed.
> Having two parts of the kernel doing the same thing just seems
> very wrong to me.
> 
> The other alternative as suggested earlier this week would be archictures
> getting to 'opt out' of powerop for their cpufreq drivers where it doesn't
> necessarily bring anything but the layer of indirection.
> 
> I'm about to disappear for two weeks for a much needed vacation, but
> I'll be interested to see other folks comments/opinions on this
> when I get back.

I worry about all the users of ondemand and powernow.  Whatever
happens it needs to be a evolve over time.  I don't know how you can
have only one power solution that works for HPC and embedded.

> 
> 		Dave
> 
> -- 
> http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
> _______________________________________________
> linux-pm mailing list
> linux-pm@lists.osdl.org
> https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm