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

Matthew Locke
2006-09-12T08:26:29Z

On Sep 11, 2006, at 8:31 PM, Greg KH wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 02:50:04PM -0700, Matthew Locke wrote:
>>
>> I would like to get a plan in place for acceptance with the power
>> management guys before we move this to lkml.
>
> Sure, let's see something here that we all agree on. You have yet to
> achieve that, so you still have work to do.
>
>> I propose that we submit the current set of PowerOP patches plus final
>> few changes (from Greg's comments and a Documentation/ file).
>
> Nothing is keeping you from sending these to the list now. Please do
> so.

The only thing stopping us is time:) It will happen soon.

>
>> The patches do not affect anyone else. The sysfs interface is
>> optional.
>
> If so, it will be interesting to see why the code is even needed, I
> await the patches :)

PowerOP patches have been submitted to this list several times for
review. You even reviewed a version or two. The main comments we are
addressing are small issues such as add a file in Documentation and
module reference counting. Not much else will change so you have the
code. The cpufreq<->PowerOP integration patches have also been
submitted but no one has responded to those.

Just read the other emails. I will stop here. It's time to reset the
discussion again.

>
>> If necessary Eugeny and I will maintain userspace interface patches
>> outside the mainline for now.
>
> Why? What good would the in-kernel patches be then if it can't be used
> except for some external patches? That's not acceptable. And the user
> interface has been tied to the other kernel code, so I think you need
> them both, but am willing to be convinced otherwise.

I think so too. This offer is in response to Pavel's comment that
PowerOP is ok for in-kernel usage but not userspace.

>
>> Will any of the power management maintainers ACK this plan and then
>> ACK the patches?
>
> Let's see the code please.
>
>> If no one here is willing to ACK, then I don't see what will change by
>> submitting to lkml.
>
> Let's get this agreed on first, I feel that you still have some way to
> go here.
>
> Sending stuff to lkml is fine too, you should be doing that for such a
> core change anyway. I don't see why you can't do that at the same
> time,
> it's just an extra email on the CC: line...
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>