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

Pavel Machek
2006-09-06T10:59:30Z

> > > I think I'm listening to arguments just as much as you guys are! We just
> > > disagree. What are your criteria for "a clean interface"? Why do you
> > > think that n separate set-parameter() interfaces, with no consistency
> > > relationship between them, are cleaner than one define-op() and one
> > > set-op() interface?
> >
> > Because we already have cpufreq-set-parameter() interface and
> > enter-suspend-state() interface. We can't really get rid of them.
> >
> This is true. Yet todays cpufreq interface is not up to the job of
> providing power management for many embedded platforms.

> > If you add set-op() replacing both cpufreq-set-parameter() and
> > enter-suspend-state(), we'll end up with two different interfaces for
> > each interface; that's considered "mess".
>
> Why can't they coexist?
>
> Are you arguing that the cpufreq interface be morphed to support power
> op applications?

No. I'm arguing that

* cpufreq interface should be used for changing cpu frequency

* additional interfaces should be created for changing memory clock
etc.

* existing interfaces should be used for turning devices on/off (and
new ones created when old ones do not exist)

* powerop should take a look what userspace wants, and just close
closest point to that.
Pavel

--
Thanks, Sharp!