LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pavel Machek <>
To: kernel list <>
Subject: cpufreq user<->kernel interface removal [was Re: community PM requirements/issues and PowerOP] (fwd)
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 01:07:20 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)

(I typoed in lkml address, sorry, and please include correct address
in Cc).

----- Forwarded message from Pavel Machek <> -----

To: "Eugeny S. Mints" <>,
Cc: Preece Scott-PREECE <>,
	Matthew Locke <>, Greg KH <>,
	Amit Kucheria <>,
	pm list <>,
	Mark Gross <>,
	Igor Stoppa <>
Subject: cpufreq user<->kernel interface removal [was Re: community PM requirements/issues and PowerOP]
X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health.


(cc-ed to lkml).

> >>Just as a data point, "keeping the cpufreq interface" is
> >>irrelevant to a number of us, because we configure it out
> >>of the system.  I'm not really arguing that we should get
> >>rid of an existing kernel interface, but I don't see any
> >>reason why we shouldn't be able to have a separately
> >>configurable interface if cpufreq doesn't meet our needs.
> >
> >Configurable interfaces are evil,
> Are you saying that not having sysfs attribute nodes for entities which 
> don't exist in a certain configuration is evil?

I'm saying that

	provide user<->kernel interface

is evil.

> >patch. You have developed your own little interface that suits your
> >needs -- and that's fine -- but now you are trying to push it into
> >mainline... and that is not, because those interfaces were not really
> >designed to work together.

> once cpufreq userland interface functionality which does not belong to the 
> kernel is moved out of the kernel cpufreq interface becomes a subset of 
> PowerOP sysfs interface. In other words this means that improvements of PM 
>  stack layers/interfaces design will allow to design/develop an universal 
> userspace interface. We'd prefer to move gracefully in this direction 
> though.

<tongue-in-cheek warning>

Yes, once cpufreq userland interface is removed from kernel, merging
powerop is reasonable thing to do. But please get at least
Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt patch merged to mainline
before attempting next powerop submission :-P.

<I'm trying to explain that removing cpufreq userland interface is
about as probable as MS Linux, and only a bit less likely than hell
freezing over.>
(cesky, pictures)

----- End forwarded message -----

(cesky, pictures)

                 reply	other threads:[~2006-09-11 23:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='cpufreq user<->kernel interface removal [was Re: community PM requirements/issues and PowerOP] (fwd)' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).