From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Gross Subject: Re: cpufreq user<->kernel interface removal [was Re: community PM requirements/issues and PowerOP] Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:50:25 -0700 Message-ID: <20060911235025.GA14234@linux.intel.com> References: <20060911210026.GG11901@elf.ucw.cz> <20060911213930.GJ11901@elf.ucw.cz> <4505E62F.1000203@gmail.com> <20060911230529.GC13474@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: <20060911230529.GC13474@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: lkml@elf.ucw.cz, Preece Scott-PREECE , pm list List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 01:05:29AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > = > (cc-ed to lkml). > = > > >>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. > > > > > >Configurable interfaces are evil, > > Are you saying that not having sysfs attribute nodes for entities which = > > don't exist in a certain configuration is evil? > = > I'm saying that > = > #ifdef CONFIG_FOO > provide user<->kernel interface > #endif > = > is evil. > I disagree. > > >patch. You have developed your own little interface that suits your > > >needs -- and that's fine -- but now you are trying to push it into > > >mainline... and that is not, because those interfaces were not really > > >designed to work together. > = > > once cpufreq userland interface functionality which does not belong to = the = > > kernel is moved out of the kernel cpufreq interface becomes a subset of = > > PowerOP sysfs interface. In other words this means that improvements of= PM = > > stack layers/interfaces design will allow to design/develop an univers= al = > > userspace interface. We'd prefer to move gracefully in this direction = > > though. > = > > = > Yes, once cpufreq userland interface is removed from kernel, merging > powerop is reasonable thing to do. But please get at least > Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt patch merged to mainline > before attempting next powerop submission :-P. > = > about as probable as MS Linux, and only a bit less likely than hell > freezing over.> The PowerOP patch has nothing to do with the removal of cpufreq. You may be confusing this work with the david signleton patch. --mgross