From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Martin J. Bligh" Subject: Re: New PowerManagement - cpufreq category? Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:52:41 -0800 Sender: cpufreq-bounces@www.linux.org.uk Message-ID: <47480000.1076971961@flay> References: <20040216081412.GA8955@dominikbrodowski.de> <6350000.1076946204@[10.10.2.4]> <20040216185908.GA8531@dominikbrodowski.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20040216185908.GA8531@dominikbrodowski.de> Content-Disposition: inline List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: cpufreq-bounces+glkc-cpufreq=gmane.org@www.linux.org.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Dominik Brodowski Cc: bugme-admin@osdl.org, cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk --On Monday, February 16, 2004 19:59:08 +0100 Dominik Brodowski wrote: > On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 07:43:25AM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote: >> --Dominik Brodowski 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 > >> 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 ;-)