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

Pavel Machek
2006-09-11T21:06:34Z

On Mon 2006-09-11 13:33:00, Matthew Locke wrote:
> On Sep 11, 2006, at 1:09 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >On Mon 2006-09-11 22:06:36, 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:
> >
> >>>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.
> >
> >Oh and I am pretty tired of teaching you 'how to submit a patch', so
> >if I'm quiet, do not take it as an "ACK".
...
> What does your going quiet mean? You have had some good feedback so I
> much prefer we reach some sort of understanding. If your final
> statement is that PowerOP is not needed and you are never going to like
> it or ACK It, let us know. We can agree to disagree.

You got the interfaces wrong. While I believe that something like
powerop can indeed be useful for system-on-chip platforms, I do not
think it should be exposed outside of kernel.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html