On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 05:17:01PM -0700, Mark Gross wrote:
>
> cpufreq is broken at the cpufreq_driver interface for embedded
> applications needing control over more than one control variable at a
> time.
>
> That interface only supports setting target frequencies, and expanding it
> to set target frequencies and voltages is not possible without something
> like PowerOP. Adding the types of parameters to cpufreq would likely
> make cpufreq a mess. I think we would be better off with something that
> coexists with cpufreq, like the powerop patch from Eugeny.
>
> God help you if you try to use cpufreq on a complex non-PC platform with
> multiple power and clock domains that need to be tweaked to squeeze out
> competitive battery life.
>
> Because of the existing user base of cpufreq removing cpufreq will never
> happen. No one supporting the PowerOP patch has never recommended
> such a thing. However; holding back innovation because of an existing
> solution that doesn't support a large class of users seems dumb.
But you can't break the existing stuff, and it seems that some of these
proposals are doing just that. :(
thanks,
greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
