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

Mark Gross
2006-09-11T22:00:07Z

On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 10:06:36PM +0200, 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:
> >
> > >>>You did echo low > something to change CPU frequency, IIRC.
> > >>My patch set presents two different interfaces built on top of
> > >>PowerOP -
> > >>cpufreq and sysfs interfaces. So _no_, PowerOP is not all about
> > >
> > >Okay, drop sysfs interface, and we may have something that can be
> > >reviewed.
> >
> > Sysfs is a separate patch that can rejected. Nothing is stopping
> > people from reviewing.
>
> If you submit patch series with one bad patch, you are very unlikely
> to get feedback for the good patches.
>
> > >Actually that's good idea. Submit powerop without doing _any_ kernel
> > >interface changes, so we can see that it makes sense...
> >
> > Just to be clear this is the approach we did and are doing.
>
> That's not what I remember. Please resubmit, then. And cc lkml this
> time.
>
> > 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.
>
> No, I'm not ready to ACK. Actually I'd describe it as "broken piece of
> code noone needs". And IIRC Greg's last question was "what is it good
> for?". Dave Jones was not too pleased with cpufreq/powerop
> integration. Intel people explained you broke centrino
> speedstep. Shall I continue?
>

Those where directed to the other patch that David Singleton posted.

> Pavel
> --
> (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
> (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html