From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: cpufreq user<->kernel interface removal [was Re: community PM requirements/issues and PowerOP] Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:35:37 -0700 Message-ID: <20060912033537.GC27397@kroah.com> References: <20060911210026.GG11901@elf.ucw.cz> <20060911213930.GJ11901@elf.ucw.cz> <4505E62F.1000203@gmail.com> <20060911230529.GC13474@elf.ucw.cz> <20060911235025.GA14234@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: <20060911235025.GA14234@linux.intel.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: Mark Gross Cc: lkml@elf.ucw.cz.kroah.org, Pavel Machek , Preece Scott-PREECE , pm list List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 04:50:25PM -0700, Mark Gross wrote: > The PowerOP patch has nothing to do with the removal of cpufreq. You > may be confusing this work with the david signleton patch. I am totally confused about who is working on what, and what provides what. Can someone make quick cheat-sheet that shows the different developers/companies and projects here? The fact that it's impossible to keep this straight in the first place does not bode well... Or, can each of the different projects send a _short_, 1 paragraph, 4 sentance maximum summary of the different things. Think of it as your "elevator pitch". The different multi-page summaries ware making my eyes glaze over... thanks, greg k-h