Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> >
> > "policy input" --> "frequency input" --> cpufreq core --> cpufreq driver
> > user-space | k e r n e l - s p a c e
>
> No.
>
> The "policy input" has to filter down ALL THE WAY. If you turn it into a
> frequency-only input at _any_ time, you've lost information that the
> lowest levels need.
>
> THAT is the problem with the current #3 - it _assumes_ that the policy
> input has already been converted to frequency, and since it assumes that,
> it cannot handle the case where the hardware itself wants to know what the
> policy was.
I wonder about converting it to frequency at most any
level. Why not some abstract such as % of full speed, or %
of full power. I, for one, don't want to have to think
absolute numbers. First thing you know I will have a new
box with different numbers. Then what?
-- George Anzinger george@mvista.com High-res-timers: http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/ Preemption patch: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Aug 31 2002 - 22:00:25 EST