New PowerManagement - cpufreq category?

New PowerManagement - cpufreq category?

[Dominik Brodowski]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 290 bytes --]

Quoting
------- Additional Comment #1 From Len Brown  2004-02-14 22:53 -------
from bug #2081:
"(we really should have a better category than power-management/other for
cpufreq stuff)"


What do you think about a new component "cpufreq" as part of 
"Power Management"?

	Dominik

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 143 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Cpufreq mailing list
Cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk
http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/cpufreq

Re: New PowerManagement - cpufreq category?

[Martin J. Bligh]

--Dominik Brodowski <mail@dominikbrodowski.de> wrote (on Monday, February 16, 2004 09:14:12 +0100):

> Quoting
> ------- Additional Comment #1 From Len Brown  2004-02-14 22:53 -------
> from bug #2081:
> "(we really should have a better category than power-management/other for
> cpufreq stuff)"
> 
> 
> What do you think about a new component "cpufreq" as part of 
> "Power Management"?

If it's a separated component that's receiving a fair number of bugs, 
then yes we could. Who is the maintainer, and where does it lie under 
the source tree?

M.

Re: New PowerManagement - cpufreq category?

[Dominik Brodowski]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 928 bytes --]

On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 07:43:25AM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> --Dominik Brodowski <mail@dominikbrodowski.de> wrote (on Monday, February 16, 2004 09:14:12 +0100):
> 
> > Quoting
> > ------- Additional Comment #1 From Len Brown  2004-02-14 22:53 -------
> > from bug #2081:
> > "(we really should have a better category than power-management/other for
> > cpufreq stuff)"
> > 
> > 
> > What do you think about a new component "cpufreq" as part of 
> > "Power Management"?
> 
> If it's a separated component that's receiving a fair number of bugs, 
Currently, the open bugs #2025, #2081, #1696 and #2111 would fall under this
category. Maybe I missed some, though.

> then yes we could. Who is the maintainer,
Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>

> and where does it lie under the source tree?
drivers/cpufreq/ and, for i386 [though other archs also support cpufreq]
arch/i386/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/

	Dominik

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 143 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Cpufreq mailing list
Cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk
http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/cpufreq

Re: New PowerManagement - cpufreq category?

[Martin J. Bligh]

--On Monday, February 16, 2004 19:59:08 +0100 Dominik Brodowski <linux@dominikbrodowski.de> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 07:43:25AM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>> --Dominik Brodowski <mail@dominikbrodowski.de> wrote (on Monday, February 16, 2004 09:14:12 +0100):
>> 
>> > Quoting
>> > ------- Additional Comment #1 From Len Brown  2004-02-14 22:53 -------
>> > from bug #2081:
>> > "(we really should have a better category than power-management/other for
>> > cpufreq stuff)"
>> > 
>> > 
>> > What do you think about a new component "cpufreq" as part of 
>> > "Power Management"?
>> 
>> If it's a separated component that's receiving a fair number of bugs, 
> Currently, the open bugs #2025, #2081, #1696 and #2111 would fall under this
> category. Maybe I missed some, though.
> 
>> then yes we could. Who is the maintainer,
> Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
> 
>> and where does it lie under the source tree?
> drivers/cpufreq/ and, for i386 [though other archs also support cpufreq]
> arch/i386/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/

I double-checked with davej ... now created and he owns it, thanks to Jon ;-)