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

Matthew Locke
2006-08-14T23:24:33Z

On Aug 14, 2006, at 3:46 PM, Dave Jones wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 03:24:19PM -0700, Matthew Locke wrote:
>
>> I am a little concerned that none of the cpufreq developers have
>> responded. I was hoping to get their feedback.
>
> I was waiting for the dust to settle before spending a significant
> amount of time reviewing. I have to admit, the two patchsets thing
> did confuse me too. (Though I've also been swamped with bugs since
> I got back from OLS, so I've appreciated the breathing room :)

Yeah, I understand that. I'm still catching up as well.

>
> If we're arriving any closer to consensus on whats mergable from the
> cpufreq side, and what needs more input, I'll find the time to review
> soon, but there still seems to be ongoing discussion which is why I
> decided to leave it sort itself out :)

I think we are at the stage of need more input on the last set of
Eugeny's patches. (the ones I point to in my email) The cpufreq
patches, so far, are more for example. We need a bit of work before
they are ready for merging. However, I would prefer to have your
feedback now rather than later.

>
>>> (If you can't tell I'm getting a bit annoyed at having to tell people
>>> all the time that yes, power management on Linux is bad, and yes,
>>> people
>>> are working on it, but no, I have no idea when it will ever see the
>>> light of day...)
>>
>> Well, we are working on it.
>
> Sadly powerop is but a tiny piece of the puzzle.

Cheer up guys. Power management will get better one piece at a time;
just like the rest of Linux:)

>
> Dave
>
> --
> http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
>