Re: cpufreq user<->kernel interface removal [was Re: community PM requirements/issues and PowerOP]

Matthew Locke
2006-09-12T08:41:27Z

On Sep 11, 2006, at 8:35 PM, Greg KH wrote:

> 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...
>

Sure, I think that is very necessary right now. In fact, everyone
should probably hold off on commenting until this is well understood.

While I think its good to reset the discussion with a high level
summary, a lot of discussion explaining why PowerOP is required for
embedded devices has occurred over the last several months that can not
be summarized in 4 sentences. People will definitely need to read the
archives to catch up on the why.

The PowerOP summary will follow soon.

> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>