Hi,
Just some nitpicking at the description, will cover the patches next.
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 06:42:26PM +0400, Eugeny S. Mints wrote:
> Integrating CPUFreq and PowerOP was discussed at the Linux PM summit
> and in recent emails exchanges. Some say keep them separate and some
> say they must be integrated. There is actually a very natural point
> where integration makes sense - cpufreq_driver.
Well, I don't think that cpufreq_driver is the "natural" point -- in fact,
I think it is one of the worst points for the interaction. My alternative
suggestion will be the last one of the many mails you'll likely receive from
me today :)
> The patches do not change the functionality of the cpufreq core.
> Instead the idea is to redesign the tightly coupled interfaces of
> cpufreq to clearly separate the arch dependent and independent pieces
> layers. This enables cpufreq to become arch independent and can start
> to use the named operating points in all its layers.
cpufreq is arch independent, as can be seen that it is used by many
different architectures right now.
> cpufreq.c
> - get rid of cpufreq driver calls. the calls are replaced be calls to arch
> independent freq_helpers (freq_helpers.c)
Have you considered the drivers which do not use the frequency table helper
library in cpufreq?
> - available frequencies sysfs interface now can be handled in arch
> independent way
Also for the case where there are thousands of frequency states? Or only a
range to be set, and a in-CPU-mode [longrun]? There's a reason this export
is optional.
> - cpufreq_sysdev_driver now serves only cpufreq core internal needs upon cpu
> add/remove events (since all hw related is handled by PM Core)
That sounds like a good step forward -- especially as sysdevs may actually
be removed soon. It's orthogonal to the other changes though; i.e. we could
do that with the current cpufreq core without switching to PowerOP/"PM
core".
> freq_table.c (now freq_helpers.c)
> - get rid of cpufreq_frequency_table structures as input parameter and made
> the code arch independent by leveraging PowerOP interface
arch independent? Well, this helper library is used by different archs already...
Thanks,
Dominik
-
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]
