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 16:35:26 +0400 Message-ID: <45094C8E.8030407@gmail.com> References: <20060913045405.BA7DD1A0084@adsl-69-226-248-13.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net> <20060914091211.GA14874@elf.ucw.cz> <45092968.7070508@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: 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: Vitaly Wool Cc: linux-pm@lists.osdl.org, Matthew Locke , Preece Scott-PREECE , Pavel Machek List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Vitaly, Vitaly Wool wrote: > Eugeny, > = > On 9/14/06, Eugeny S. Mints wrote: > = >> Separate or one universal user space<->kernel interface is another story. >> Universal is preferred of course and in two words to achieve universal = >> interface >> current cpufreq interface needs to be improved - but remains unchanged = >> for user >> space !!!! - in the way to handle "chose closet predefined frequency = >> to an >> arbitrary freq value echo'ed into /sys/cpufreq/cpuN/freq" = >> functionality in user >> space instead of in the kernel. Assuming that frequency attribute is = >> exported >> for all available operating points it is possible to implement the = >> "cpufreq >> frequency selection logic" in user space and having such functionality = >> in the >> kernel just violates the main rule of having everything possible = >> outside of the >> kernel. > = > Let's not be in a hurry, if possible. > I wonder why not to present PowerOP with a _separate_ *kernel* API at > the moment. it is exactly how PowerOP submission is positioned - it was submitted as a = standalone patch without any relationship to cpufreq integration patch. Cpufreq patch was submitted mostly for reference and discussion; to demonst= rate = that future integration with cpufreq is in mind and outline that PowerOP wi= ll = not require cpufreq _interface_ to be changed. > = >> More details here: >> http://lists.osdl.org/pipermail/linux-pm/2006-September/003660.html >> and here >> http://lists.osdl.org/pipermail/linux-pm/2006-September/003671.html > = > Again, let's first make PowerOP accepted in mainline and then start > talking about integration with cpufreq. that's exactly our understanding of an evolutionary development process. > Looking again at the links you've provided, I'd guess BTW that you > meant configfs not sysfs in some cases. configfs is in my TODO list. Eugeny > = > Vitaly > =