From: Matthew Locke <matt@nomadgs.com>
To: Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-pm@lists.osdl.org, david singleton <dsingleton@mvista.com>
Subject: Re: Dynanic On-The-Fly Operating points for PowerOP
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 16:14:36 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ea3ff079538ac1f02dd4c7ec48953146@nomadgs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <acd2a5930608120107k36653863vdfc8bd3875d395a9@mail.gmail.com>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-08-12 23:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-08-08 18:12 Dynanic On-The-Fly Operating points for PowerOP David Singleton
2006-08-09 21:17 ` Matthew Locke
2006-08-10 4:39 ` david singleton
2006-08-10 7:44 ` Matthew Locke
2006-08-12 8:07 ` Vitaly Wool
2006-08-12 18:12 ` david singleton
2006-08-12 21:32 ` david singleton
2006-08-12 21:39 ` david singleton
2006-08-12 21:40 ` david singleton
2006-08-12 21:41 ` david singleton
2006-08-16 15:02 ` Len Brown
2006-08-12 23:14 ` Matthew Locke [this message]
2006-08-13 2:25 ` Preece Scott-PREECE
2006-08-14 3:37 ` david singleton
2006-08-15 19:44 ` Pavel Machek
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ea3ff079538ac1f02dd4c7ec48953146@nomadgs.com \
--to=matt@nomadgs.com \
--cc=dsingleton@mvista.com \
--cc=linux-pm@lists.osdl.org \
--cc=vitalywool@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox