From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: So, what's the status on the recent patches here? Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 18:00:20 -0700 Message-ID: <20060815010020.GA14251@kroah.com> References: <20060814200735.GC14099@kroah.com> <20060814224623.GH30814@redhat.com> <221e3d51950d20642b3655617527dc52@nomadgs.com> <20060814234801.GK30814@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060814234801.GK30814@redhat.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org To: Dave Jones Cc: linux-pm@lists.osdl.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 07:48:01PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > = > 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? > = > Every explanation of powerop I've seen so far dives into microdetails, > whilst the 10,000ft view has always passed me by other than "this is > what we've had in the embedded world". > = > The diagram at http://lists.osdl.org/pipermail/linux-pm/2006-August/00319= 6.html > also confuses me. I was under the impression that powerop was adding add= itional > userspace interfaces. If we're not changing how things from a userspace > point of view, we're churning a lot of kernel code,.. why? > = > Clue me in here, I'm feeling thick. You're not alone, I really don't get it either. But I guess we'll just wait for the next round of unified patches and then go from there. thanks, greg k-h