From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Locke Subject: Re: Dynanic On-The-Fly Operating points for PowerOP Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 16:14:36 -0700 Message-ID: References: <44D8D40F.50005@mvista.com> <5da81756733c335565f969bab0c9b934@mvista.com> <26d93dc005e384544d9ea702baa4a4af@nomadgs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v624) 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, david singleton List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org 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