cpufreq terminally broken [was Re: community PM requirements/issues and PowerOP]

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

Hi!

Just for the record... this goes out to the lkml. This discussion was
internal for way too long. (for interested lkml readers, I'm sure
linux-pm mailing list has public archive somewhere).

On Tue 2006-09-12 02:05:26, Eugeny S. Mints wrote:
> Pavel Machek wrote:
> >>>>- PowerOP is only one layer (towards the bottom) in a power management 
> >>>>solution.
> >>>>- PowerOP does *not* replace cpufreq
> >>>PowerOP provides userland interface for changing processor
> >>>frequency. That's bad -- duplicate interface.
> >>Basically the biggest problem with cpufreq interface is that cpufreq has 
> >>"chose
> >>predefined closest to a given frequency" functionality implemented in the
> >>kernel while there is _no_ any reason to have this functionality 
> >>implemented in
> >>the kernel if we have sysfs interface exported by PowerOP in place - you 
> >>just
> >
> >No, there is reason to keep that in kernel -- so that cpufreq
> >userspace interface can be kept, and so that resulting kernel<->user
> >interface is not ugly.
> Cpuferq defines cpufreq_frequency_table structure in arch independent 
> header while it's arch dependent data structure. A lot of code is built 
> around this invalid basic brick and therefore is invalid: cpufreq tables, 
> interface with cpu freq drivers, etc. Notion of transition latency as it 
> defined by cpufreq is wrong because it's not a function of cpu type but 
> function of current and next operating point. no runtime control on 
> operating points set. it's always the same set of operating points for all 
> system cpus in smp case and no way to define different sets or track any 
> dependencies in case say multi core cpus. insufficient kernel<->user space 
> interface to handle embedded requirements and no way to extend it within 
> current design. Shall I continue?  Why should then anyone want to keep 
> cpufreq userspace interface just due to keep it?

Yes, please continue. I do not think we can just rip cpufreq interface
out of kernel, and I do not think it is as broken as you claim it
is. Ripping interface out of kernel takes years.

I'm sure cpufreq_frequency_table could be moved to asm/ header if you
felt strongly about that.

I believe we need to fix cpufreq if it is broken for embedded
cases.
								Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/