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

Preece Scott-PREECE
2006-08-13T02:25:58Z

I'd say that David's recent note provides some useful information about
why his implementation is different. I don't mind seeing an alternate
implementation if there's a reason for it, but I have to say that it
would have been nice to have the exegesis with or before the patches.

scott

-----Original Message-----
From: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org
[mailto:linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Locke
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 6:15 PM
To: Vitaly Wool
Cc: linux-pm@lists.osdl.org; david singleton
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] Dynanic On-The-Fly Operating points for PowerOP

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

_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@lists.osdl.org