Re: community PM requirements/issues and PowerOP [Was: Re: So, what's the status on the recent patches here?]

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

On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 10:20:25AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> On Mon 2006-09-11 11:57:28, Eugeny S. Mints wrote:
> > [snip]
> > >> Are you arguing that the cpufreq interface be morphed to support power
> > >> op applications?
> > >
> > > No. I'm arguing that
> > >
> > > * cpufreq interface should be used for changing cpu frequency
> > the patch set i sent out has cpufreq used for changing cpu frequency,
> > hasn't it?
> 
> I was talking about kernel<->user interface.
> 
> You did echo low > something to change CPU frequency, IIRC.
> 
> > can we eventually start talking more close to the code rather than
> > speculating without it?
> 
> Lets get kernel<->user interface right, first. You'll need to create
> Documentation/ entries for your interfaces, eventually, so lets do
> that, first, and then talk about code. Oh and it would be nice to cc
> lkml on that document, too. New kernel<->user interface is not
> decision taken lightly.

Is this just trying delay power op getting into the kernel?  We are
building up / evolving a PM stack from bottom up and you want to the
high level interface to be well defined and agreed upon first?  

I think the kernel user interface is important too but you are asking
for a complete solution stack when we are following an evolutionary
development process.  

--mgross