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

[Matthew Locke <matt@nomadgs.com>]

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
>