From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Eugeny S. Mints" Subject: Re: community PM requirements/issues and PowerOP [Was: Re: So, what's the status on the recent patches here?] Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 14:47:08 +0400 Message-ID: <4509332C.40706@gmail.com> References: <20060913045405.BA7DD1A0084@adsl-69-226-248-13.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net> <20060914091211.GA14874@elf.ucw.cz> <45092968.7070508@gmail.com> <20060914101704.GA17820@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20060914101704.GA17820@elf.ucw.cz> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org To: Pavel Machek Cc: Preece Scott-PREECE , Matthew Locke , linux-pm@lists.osdl.org, kernel list List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > = >> operating points it is possible to implement the "cpufreq frequency = >> selection logic" in user space and having such functionality in the kern= el = >> just violates the main rule of having everything possible outside of the = >> kernel. > = > You got the rules wrong. "Keep the code out of kernel" is important > rule, but probably not the main one. funny. not to mention that it was not the only argument I presented but ple= ase = tell us explicitly what's your reason to blow out kernel footprint by the c= ode = which can be handled outside the kernel. I'd prefer to see technical reason= s a = kind of latencies, etc but not the constant refrain "don't touch cpufreq = interface". Especially considering that proposed improvements _do_ _not_ = _change_ the interface. And just FYI kernel footprint was stated as one of main current issues at l= east = on the last OLS. > = >> Paval, plz NOTE, that you don't have lkml in CC on this thread and I = >> personally feel that you've brought a really terrible confusion to every= one = >> with your lkml step. I'm wondering whether you are braking "no cross = >> postings" rule as well..... > = > Cc-ing lkml is considered okay. > = > Anyway, please do _proper_ submission, = I already did _proper_ submissions several time on IMO the _proper_ list. >cc-ing lkml, explaining why it > is needed so that me and lkml actually know what is going on. = will do Eugeny >Include > those "elevator pitches". > Pavel > =