Re: [PATCH][2.5.32] CPU frequency and voltage scaling (0/4)

[george anzinger <george@mvista.com>]

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> >
> > "policy input" --> "frequency input" --> cpufreq core --> cpufreq driver
> >   user-space    |                 k e r n e l  -  s p a c e
> 
> No.
> 
> The "policy input" has to filter down ALL THE WAY. If you turn it into a
> frequency-only input at _any_ time, you've lost information that the
> lowest levels need.
> 
> THAT is the problem with the current #3 - it _assumes_ that the policy
> input has already been converted to frequency, and since it assumes that,
> it cannot handle the case where the hardware itself wants to know what the
> policy was.

I wonder about converting it to frequency at most any
level.  Why not some abstract such as % of full speed, or %
of full power.  I, for one, don't want to have to think
absolute numbers.  First thing you know I will have a new
box with different numbers.  Then what?
-- 
George Anzinger   george@mvista.com
High-res-timers: 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/
Preemption patch:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml