Re: Dynanic On-The-Fly Operating points for PowerOP

Matthew Locke
2006-08-12T23:14:36Z

On Aug 12, 2006, at 1:07 AM, Vitaly Wool wrote:
> May I disagree? Having an alternative implementation is never a bad
> thing, unless the sides are unable to co-operate ;)
> Let's try to compare implementations and their concepts, and benefit
> from both.

What are you disagreeing with? Re-read my statement below. I don't
see the reason for another implementation. Rather than guess, I would
prefer that Dave tell us why he is submitting a different powerop
interface. There must be something driving him to do so.

>> Is there
>> something specific missing or wrong with the patches we submitted that
>> required another set of patches to be developed? By joining in the
>> discussion, I mean that you should let us know this information. If
>> patches are your method for doing so, then at least provide a
>> description of what your patches address that ours does not. Right
>> now, its just unclear why there are two different powerop patchsets.
>>

Matt