Messages in this thread | | | Subject | RE: [PATCH] 3/3 Dynamic cpufreq governor and updates to ACPI P-state driver | Date | Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:52:32 -0700 | From | "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <> |
| |
OK. I will stick 'demandbased' then.
-Venkatesh
> -----Original Message----- > From: Dominik Brodowski [mailto:linux@brodo.de] > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 11:39 AM > To: Nakajima, Jun; Moore, Robert; Pavel Machek > Cc: Pallipadi, Venkatesh; Mallick, Asit K; linux-acpi; > cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |