From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Gross 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 15:00:07 -0700 Message-ID: <20060911220007.GB12176@linux.intel.com> References: <450516E8.9010403@gmail.com> <20060911082025.GD1898@elf.ucw.cz> <450530BD.8090101@gmail.com> <20060911193637.GA11901@elf.ucw.cz> <20060911200636.GC11901@elf.ucw.cz> Reply-To: mgross@linux.intel.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: <20060911200636.GC11901@elf.ucw.cz> 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: Pavel Machek Cc: pm list , Preece Scott-PREECE List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 10:06:36PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Mon 2006-09-11 12:53:27, Matthew Locke wrote: > > On Sep 11, 2006, at 12:36 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > = > > >>>You did echo low > something to change CPU frequency, IIRC. > > >>My patch set presents two different interfaces built on top of = > > >>PowerOP - > > >>cpufreq and sysfs interfaces. So _no_, PowerOP is not all about > > > > > >Okay, drop sysfs interface, and we may have something that can be > > >reviewed. > > = > > Sysfs is a separate patch that can rejected. Nothing is stopping = > > people from reviewing. > = > If you submit patch series with one bad patch, you are very unlikely > to get feedback for the good patches. > = > > >Actually that's good idea. Submit powerop without doing _any_ kernel > > >interface changes, so we can see that it makes sense... > > = > > Just to be clear this is the approach we did and are doing. > = > That's not what I remember. Please resubmit, then. And cc lkml this > time. > = > > btw, if people on this list are not ready to ACK PowerOP, I would like = > > to hear why before we go elsewhere. It looks like all major issues = > > have been addressed by our approach and implementation. > = > No, I'm not ready to ACK. Actually I'd describe it as "broken piece of > code noone needs". And IIRC Greg's last question was "what is it good > for?". Dave Jones was not too pleased with cpufreq/powerop > integration. Intel people explained you broke centrino > speedstep. Shall I continue? > = Those where directed to the other patch that David Singleton posted. > Pavel > -- = > (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek > (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/b= log.html