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 8:31 PM, Greg KH wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 02:50:04PM -0700, Matthew Locke wrote:
>>
>> I would like to get a plan in place for acceptance with the power
>> management guys before we move this to lkml.
>
> Sure, let's see something here that we all agree on.  You have yet to
> achieve that, so you still have work to do.
>
>> I propose that we submit the current set of PowerOP patches plus final
>> few changes (from Greg's comments and a Documentation/ file).
>
> Nothing is keeping you from sending these to the list now.  Please do
> so.

The only thing stopping us is time:)  It will happen soon.

>
>> The patches do not affect anyone else.  The sysfs interface is
>> optional.
>
> If so, it will be interesting to see why the code is even needed, I
> await the patches :)

PowerOP patches have been submitted to this list several times for 
review.  You even reviewed a version or two.  The main comments we are 
addressing are small issues such as add a file in Documentation and 
module reference counting.  Not much else will change so you have the 
code.  The cpufreq<->PowerOP integration patches have also been 
submitted but no one has responded to those.

Just read the other emails.  I will stop here.  It's time to reset the 
discussion again.

>
>> If necessary Eugeny and I will maintain userspace interface patches
>> outside the mainline for now.
>
> Why?  What good would the in-kernel patches be then if it can't be used
> except for some external patches?  That's not acceptable.  And the user
> interface has been tied to the other kernel code, so I think you need
> them both, but am willing to be convinced otherwise.

I think so too.  This offer is in response to Pavel's comment that 
PowerOP is ok for in-kernel usage but not userspace.

>
>> Will any of the power management maintainers ACK this plan and then
>> ACK the patches?
>
> Let's see the code please.
>
>> If no one here is willing to ACK, then I don't see what will change by
>> submitting to lkml.
>
> Let's get this agreed on first, I feel that you still have some way to
> go here.
>
> Sending stuff to lkml is fine too, you should be doing that for such a
> core change anyway.  I don't see why you can't do that at the same 
> time,
> it's just an extra email on the CC: line...
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>