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

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

On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 11:06:45AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Sun 2006-09-03 17:40:27, Scott E. Preece wrote:
> > 
> > | From: Pavel Machek<pavel@ucw.cz>
> > | 
> > | On Sun 2006-09-03 17:12:22, Scott E. Preece wrote:
> > | > | From: Pavel Machek<pavel@ucw.cz>
> 
> > | > Not speaking to either of the current code submissions, I would say that
> > | > having a kernel interface for defining OPs and a kernel interface for
> > | > setting the OP, was a reasonably clean interface.
> > | 
> > | Well, me and Rafael disagree, and you do not really listen to
> > | arguments. Now you can either fix the interface, or try to submit code
> > | to lkml despite our NAKs. Go ahead and prepare for some flaming...
> > ---
> > 
> > I think I'm listening to arguments just as much as you guys are! We just
> > disagree. What are your criteria for "a clean interface"? Why do you
> > think that n separate set-parameter() interfaces, with no consistency
> > relationship between them, are cleaner than one define-op() and one
> > set-op() interface?
> 
> Because we already have cpufreq-set-parameter() interface and
> enter-suspend-state() interface. We can't really get rid of them.
>
This is true.  Yet todays cpufreq interface is not up to the job of
providing power management for many embedded platforms.

> If you add set-op() replacing both cpufreq-set-parameter() and
> enter-suspend-state(), we'll end up with two different interfaces for
> each interface; that's considered "mess".

Why can't they coexist?

Are you arguing that the cpufreq interface be morphed to support power
op applications?


--mgross
> 								Pavel
> -- 
> (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
> (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
> _______________________________________________
> linux-pm mailing list
> linux-pm@lists.osdl.org
> https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm