Re: community PM requirements/issues and PowerOP [Was: Re: So, what's the status on the recent patches here?]

Preece Scott-PREECE
2006-09-11T21:36:33Z

> From: Pavel Machek [mailto:pavel@ucw.cz]
>
> > >>- 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.
---

Just as a data point, "keeping the cpufreq interface" is
irrelevant to a number of us, because we configure it out
of the system. I'm not really arguing that we should get
rid of an existing kernel interface, but I don't see any
reason why we shouldn't be able to have a separately
configurable interface if cpufreq doesn't meet our needs.

Note that Matthew is not arguing even that and expresses
apparent contentment with cpufreq's interface.

Regards,
scott