Re: So, what's the status on the recent patches here?

Pavel Machek
2006-08-24T12:39:54Z

Hi!

> >> This adds a whole bunch of new code, and doesn't seem to make any
> >> existing code any simpler (to me at least). From a cpufreq point of
> >view,
> >> what does adding this buy us? What problem do we have today that is
> >> being solved by all this?
>
> Greg and Dave,
>
> there are two competing patch sets for a new power
> management
> framework. The patch set I sent out simplifies power management,
> from both the cpufreq perspective and the embedded world's view of
> power management.
>
> I've renamed my patch oppoint so as not confuse it
> with the powerop set from Matt Locke (which will probably make
> it even more confusing). I've renamed it so it can be seen as an
> alternative design approach, not just an alternative implementation
> of the same ideas. I've also incorporated suggestions from
> Pavel in cleaning up the original patches.
>
> If you'd be willing to take a look at, or try out, the
> patches
> in my patch set you should be able to see how oppoint could simplify
> cpufreq code. The first patch is the oppoint-cpufreq.patch and
> the second is the oppoint-x86-centrino.patch.
>
> Oppoint could replace large pieces of the cpufreq code
> in the kernel, most notably the policy and governor code, which I
> believe belongs in user space in the power manager daemon.

I was told (by intel folks) that you can't push governor code into
userspace, because it is latency-critical on new cpus... so I do not
think this is going to simplify cpufreq.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html