Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 03:07:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 03:07:04 -0400 Received: from natwar.webmailer.de ([192.67.198.70]:58832 "EHLO post.webmailer.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 03:07:03 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 09:07:01 +0200 From: Dominik Brodowski To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Alan Cox , cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH][2.5.32] CPU frequency and voltage scaling (0/4) Message-ID: <20020829090701.C1117@brodo.de> References: <1030577406.7190.89.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.16i In-Reply-To: ; from torvalds@transmeta.com on Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 05:08:14PM -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 826 Lines: 18 On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 05:08:14PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > I don't know how many policies would be needed (too many just adds > complexity for no gain), but I _suspect_ that something like a > (maybe the "policy" thing actually makes a difference even for the > fixed-frequency case: it can give hints about whether to allow C1-C3 > states when idle etc). OK, I see the problems you mention wrt current cpufreq. But let's keep the next version simple: and whether to allow C1-C3 is really nothing cpufreq should take care of, as this is pure ACPI policy. Dominik - 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/