From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Subject: Re: community PM requirements/issues and PowerOP [Was:
	Re: So, what's the status on the recent patches here?]
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 23:00:26 +0200
Message-ID: <20060911210026.GG11901@elf.ucw.cz>
References: <450516E8.9010403@gmail.com> <20060911082025.GD1898@elf.ucw.cz>
	<b0623b9bb79afacc77cddc6e39c96b62@nomadgs.com>
	<20060911195546.GB11901@elf.ucw.cz> <4505CCDA.8020501@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4505CCDA.8020501@gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm>,
	<mailto:linux-pm-request@lists.osdl.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.osdl.org/pipermail/linux-pm>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-pm@lists.osdl.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linux-pm-request@lists.osdl.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm>,
	<mailto:linux-pm-request@lists.osdl.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org
Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org
To: "Eugeny S. Mints" <eugeny.mints@gmail.com>
Cc: pm list <linux-pm@lists.osdl.org>, Preece Scott-PREECE <scott.preece@motorola.com>
List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org


> >>- PowerOP is only one layer (towards the bottom) in a power management =

> >>solution.
> >>- PowerOP does *not* replace cpufreq
> >
> >PowerOP provides userland interface for changing processor
> >frequency. That's bad -- duplicate interface.
> Basically the biggest problem with cpufreq interface is that cpufreq has =

> "chose
> predefined closest to a given frequency" functionality implemented in the
> kernel while there is _no_ any reason to have this functionality =

> implemented in
> the kernel if we have sysfs interface exported by PowerOP in place - you =

> just

No, there is reason to keep that in kernel -- so that cpufreq
userspace interface can be kept, and so that resulting kernel<->user
interface is not ugly.

> of the fact that cpufreq implements incorrect design of PM stack layers a=
nd
> interfaces. PowerOP solves this issues as well.

Actually I believe that cpufreq implements correct design and PowerOP
got it wrong.

> >Well, you'll only get good interface review when you have
> >Documentation/ , and it needs to go to lkml before it goes to any
> >queues.
> PM stack is too complex and heavy part to go in such pieces thru lkml. i =

> expect all linux  pm experts to be on this list

"We are too lazy to make the code clean enough / well enough explained
to survive lkml review".

Your interface impacts everyone, so everyone should have chance to
comment on it.
								Pavel
-- =

(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blo=
g.html