From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Bas Mevissen <ml@basmevissen.nl>
Subject: Re: cpufreq and 2.4.
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 10:45:33 +0200
Sender: cpufreq-admin@www.linux.org.uk
Message-ID: <3F41E3AD.5060806@basmevissen.nl>
References: <20030817153510.GA2361@brodo.de> <3F40AEC8.3060306@basmevissen.nl> <20030818180012.GA1824@brodo.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <cpufreq-admin@www.linux.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20030818180012.GA1824@brodo.de>
Errors-To: cpufreq-admin@www.linux.org.uk
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/cpufreq>,
	<mailto:cpufreq-request@www.linux.org.uk?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <cpufreq.vger.kernel.org>
List-Post: <mailto:cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk>
List-Help: <mailto:cpufreq-request@www.linux.org.uk?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/cpufreq>,
	<mailto:cpufreq-request@www.linux.org.uk?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/private/cpufreq/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
To: Dominik Brodowski <linux@brodo.de>
Cc: cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk

Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> 
 >> (make a cpufreq /proc interface for 2.4 that looks like sysfs
 >> interface in 2.6)

> 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. 
> 

OK. I second that we should not introduce a new /proc interface in 2.6. 
But then the question is what to do with the /proc interface in 2.6?

I would say, remove /proc in 2.6 ASAP. We need to align this with the 
update of the userspace governors (if they don't support sysfs already).

Regards,

Bas.