Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 05:02:55 +0800 From: Jia-Shiun Li <jiashiun@gmail.com> To: Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> Cc: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cpufreq not working as module on i386/amd64 Message-ID: <CAHNYxxMzXcoYp216a7S3v1edu391RwyJcn9_KOnBJk1ixJaHrg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <51D68B23.1020104@FreeBSD.org> References: <AANLkTi=Ln7f9tWt=OqZa9eZ-ZAVBfQSC-y_=8c-6zwAd@mail.gmail.com> <20110129084125.GA54969@freebsd.org> <CAHNYxxPZMUMDMBo0tRSSjJZWqDD7BNR7BdadcVfZk5nDHS2c1A@mail.gmail.com> <CAHNYxxOCDMzumJS9S9=tmrwdjunrp6wsH5TOgLO6EEU9OAkhaQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130108150155.GF82219@kib.kiev.ua> <CAHNYxxM%2B%2BgCFS=H%2Bvc6hWYPXkYBp%2Bw29cwL_zdHTVjU824_w_w@mail.gmail.com> <51D68B23.1020104@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> wrote: > I can not bless this change, but I won't argue against it either. > > My opinion is still that OS should advertise to ACPI the capabilities that it > actually has not those that it potentially may have. So I prefer the status > quo. I think that this is a minor issue and cpufreq should just be in kernel, > and that's it. > May I know your concern? My understanding is that ACPI may export different interfaces according to _PDC evaluation. I think though ACPI may export more than actually used, as long as nobody is playing with the additional interfaces, there should be no side effects. Or these interfaces may have dependencies or interactions I am not aware of? Flexibility is good as long as it does not introduce too much complexicity. It could have benefit of less compile time, smaller size, less boot up time, etc. Regards, Jia-Shiun.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAHNYxxMzXcoYp216a7S3v1edu391RwyJcn9_KOnBJk1ixJaHrg>