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

Matthew Locke
2006-09-11T19:53:27Z

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.

> 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.
> Your code should be good enough to survive some flaming. I do not
> think it is, so yes, I think submitting it to lkml is good
> idea. You'll have to do that at some point, anyway.
>
> (And note lkml only flames you when you are doing something wrong.)

Isn't this (linux-pm) the place to discuss power management patches and
interfaces? I thought we would get ACK's from the power management
maintainers and then the patches go into -mm. Who on lkml needs to be
in this discussion that is not on this list?

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.

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