PowerOP vs OPpoint

[Matthew Locke <matthew.a.locke@comcast.net>]

Unfortunately, there are two efforts underway that makes this confusing 
and I think require a bit more than the short summary requested.  A one 
paragraph summary can't address the why and how.  This email briefly 
describes the why and the differences.

There are two main reasons for both these efforts:
- existing power management interfaces do not enable the power 
management features on the latest SOC's used in embedded mobile  
devices
- existing power management interfaces do not provide the API necessary 
to build power managers (userspace and/or kernel space) that optimize 
power consumption to level required by embedded mobile devices

PowerOP
Focus is on a platform independent interface for selecting and creating 
operating points.  We want to get the basic power management block in 
place and build on it.  Integrating with other existing power 
management interfaces as it makes sense.  The first natural integration 
point is the cpufreq_driver layer in cpufreq and does not affect the 
userspace interface.

OPpoint
Goal is to show how all existing interfaces can use the operating point 
concept.  It is more than an interface for selecting and creating 
operating points.  It integrates with cpufreq and sleep states defining 
new userspace interfaces and using existing interfaces in different 
ways.  There are a lot of issues with the OPpoint operating point 
interface that was discussed here: 
http://lists.osdl.org/pipermail/linux-pm/2006-August/003541.html .  
Many objections to the sleep state integration.  Most of the negative 
comments about cpufreq are about the OPpoint patches.

I have not seen or heard any justification for the OPpoint patches to 
create a different operating point interface.

Matt