Re: cpufreq and 2.4.

[Ducrot Bruno <ducrot@poupinou.org>]

On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 08:00:12PM +0200, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 12:47:36PM +0200, Bas Mevissen wrote:
> > >B) Difficult-to-understand cpufreq user interfaces
> > >The /proc/cpufreq and /proc/sys/cpu interfaces are difficult to understand
> > >and already deprecated in 2.6. Do we really want them to be added to a
> > >stable kernel release?
> > >
> > 
> > Well, what then? There is no sysfs in 2.4, so we need something else to 
> > control the beast :-)
> > 
> > How feasable is it to "port" the sysfs _interface_ to /proc? It would 
> > simplicate matters for users, cpufreqd and documentation as they only 
> > needs to change the "working directory" for 2.4.
> > 
> > (Because sysfs is something completely different than /proc, it would 
> > mean writing new code. But as 2.4 will be in use for a couple of years, 
> > I think it is worth the trouble.)
> 
> This seems to be a somewhat reasonable approach. However, it needs to be
> made clear that this interface will only be available on 2.4. kernels. /proc
> is bloated in 2.4., and so I don't mind, but for 2.6++ it should be aimed at
> removing unneccessary stuff from /proc, so I'd strongly oppose
> forward-porting this interface to 2.6. 
> 
> Anyways, anyone willing to write the "cpufreq 2.4. sysfs-emulation /proc
> interface"?
> 

Sorry if I wasn't clear.  I think I may have something that week, or
the next.

Cheers,

-- 
Ducrot Bruno

--  Which is worse:  ignorance or apathy?
--  Don't know.  Don't care.