From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King Subject: Re: cpufreq and 2.4. Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:57:29 +0100 Sender: cpufreq-admin@www.linux.org.uk Message-ID: <20030818115729.A31111@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20030817153510.GA2361@brodo.de> <3F40AEC8.3060306@basmevissen.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F40AEC8.3060306@basmevissen.nl>; from ml@basmevissen.nl on Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 12:47:36PM +0200 Errors-To: cpufreq-admin@www.linux.org.uk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Bas Mevissen Cc: Dominik Brodowski , cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 12:47:36PM +0200, Bas Mevissen wrote: > Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > A) Previous 2.4. cpufreq included in parts of kernel > > There _is_ already some cpufreq code in the 2.4. kernel. In arch/arm there > > are ARM-cpufreq drivers which use the previous 2.4. stable series of cpufreq > > which nobody uses on x86 any more [I guess]. In 2.6., the ARM cpufreq > > drivers are updated. However, this isn't included in the current 2.4. > > backports. > > I think that the 2.4 backports should be as complete as possible. > Currently, ARM-linux is on 2.4. But when 2.6 is out, they are very > likely to go for 2.6 ASAP as power management is a lot better integrated > in 2.6. I don't think so. PM is still developing in 2.6, and there's a fair amount of work that needs to be done in that area. I'm not aware of anyone looking into this topic on "interesting ARM platforms" at present - the main focus today continues to be 2.4-based kernels. -- Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html