From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Eugeny S. Mints" Subject: Re: community PM requirements/issues and PowerOP [Was: Re: So, what's the status on the recent patches here?] Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 00:24:25 +0400 Message-ID: <4505C5F9.4060704@gmail.com> References: <450516E8.9010403@gmail.com> <20060911082025.GD1898@elf.ucw.cz> <450530BD.8090101@gmail.com> <20060911193637.GA11901@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20060911193637.GA11901@elf.ucw.cz> 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: Pavel Machek Cc: pm list , scott.preece@motorola.com List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > = >>>>>> Are you arguing that the cpufreq interface be morphed to support pow= er >>>>>> op applications? >>>>> No. I'm arguing that >>>>> >>>>> * cpufreq interface should be used for changing cpu frequency >>>> the patch set i sent out has cpufreq used for changing cpu frequency, >>>> hasn't it? >>> I was talking about kernel<->user interface. >> me too. PowerOP is inkernel interface but which _allows_ to build various >> different kernel<->user interfaces on top of it. This PowerOP _advantage= _ = >> allows community to experiment with various kernel<->user interfaces >> on top = > = > Kernel interface is not something to be experimented with. it is since current interface (cpufreq in conjunction with /sys/power/state= , = etc) does not address all requirements to the interface. PowerOP approach h= elps = to figure out best interface gracefully since there is no common opinion in= the = community yet. > = >> and eventually end up with the best solution. The solution can be either = >> one universal, agreed by community kernel<-> user interface on top or I = can = >> imaging the approach when kernel<-> user interfaces on top are configura= ble = >> feature and system designer choses kernel<->user interface which fits be= st = >> the systems he/she builds. > = > ...and configurable kernel interfaces are very bad idea. it's not an argument. the ideal goal to end up with one universal interface= . but = until you personally stuck with cpufreq interface this is the only way to = proceed towards universal interface design. let people to investigate advan= tages = and disadvantages of this and that interfaces on a working system since we = can't = convince each other by this flame. > = >>> You did echo low > something to change CPU frequency, IIRC. >> My patch set presents two different interfaces built on top of PowerOP - = >> cpufreq and sysfs interfaces. So _no_, PowerOP is not all about > = > Okay, drop sysfs interface, and we may have something that can be > reviewed. previous take of PowerOP did not contain sysfs part but I have not received= any = you comment on this. Sysfs is completely optional feature after all. > > Actually that's good idea. Submit powerop without doing _any_ kernel > interface changes, so we can see that it makes sense... It was submitted this way several times. Eugeny