From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: community PM requirements/issues and PowerOP [Was: Re: So, what's the status on the recent patches here?] Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 12:17:04 +0200 Message-ID: <20060914101704.GA17820@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20060913045405.BA7DD1A0084@adsl-69-226-248-13.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net> <20060914091211.GA14874@elf.ucw.cz> <45092968.7070508@gmail.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: <45092968.7070508@gmail.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: "Eugeny S. Mints" Cc: Preece Scott-PREECE , Matthew Locke , linux-pm@lists.osdl.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Hi! > operating points it is possible to implement the "cpufreq frequency = > selection logic" in user space and having such functionality in the kerne= l = > just violates the main rule of having everything possible outside of the = > kernel. You got the rules wrong. "Keep the code out of kernel" is important rule, but probably not the main one. > Paval, plz NOTE, that you don't have lkml in CC on this thread and I = > personally feel that you've brought a really terrible confusion to everyo= ne = > with your lkml step. I'm wondering whether you are braking "no cross = > postings" rule as well..... Cc-ing lkml is considered okay. Anyway, please do _proper_ submission, cc-ing lkml, explaining why it is needed so that me and lkml actually know what is going on. Include those "elevator pitches". Pavel -- = (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blo= g.html