RE: [PATCH] 3/3 Dynamic cpufreq governor and updates to ACPI P-state driver

[Pallipadi, Venkatesh]

OK. I will stick 'demandbased' then. 

-Venkatesh 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dominik Brodowski [mailto:linux@xxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 11:39 AM
> To: Nakajima, Jun; Moore, Robert; Pavel Machek
> Cc: Pallipadi, Venkatesh; Mallick, Asit K; linux-acpi; 
> cpufreq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] 3/3 Dynamic cpufreq governor and updates 
> to ACPI P-state driver
> 
> 
> Vetoed.
> 
> cpufreq_dynamic is too generic, there are different 
> approaches == different
> governors in the work which are all "dynamic".
> 
> 	Dominik
> 
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 02:50:06PM -0700, Nakajima, Jun wrote:
> > Me too, because it would be consistent with the other ones; 
> i.e. how the
> > user perceives them.
> 
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 01:47:49PM -0700, Moore, Robert wrote:
> > 
> > I would vote for "cpufreq_dynamic"
> > 
> > Bob
> 
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 04:17:04PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Could you name it cpufreq_demand? We have enough
> > TLAs as is.
> > 				Pavwl
> 
> 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/