From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Jul  5 21:03:26 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3A6C3C7;
 Fri,  5 Jul 2013 21:03:26 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from jiashiun@gmail.com)
Received: from mail-oa0-x234.google.com (mail-oa0-x234.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c02::234])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 952B212EF;
 Fri,  5 Jul 2013 21:03:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-oa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id g12so3861597oah.39
 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 05 Jul 2013 14:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
 :cc:content-type;
 bh=1RjaC/4/87qACydRUU7pr2GdZdaJrBg7Q19LVL77SYw=;
 b=Pvf7qryHtzaFvxtrECTqd1frwpE9Dsl3bmLvMb3llTmC7AMPD1LALu3mD8iDSeCwA6
 gizQLXwmNHK33H+Xg91Yf8EZd+D1WyWTG724F4Ruyb2yI7VZ0vLN6tXlF1Exn+bz7KGC
 HNvHwkJd4EovFsrccuUsEbUWPBnK6BPQrZzRFiD4EjXE3ELQ9luaCMpcFiIvJYKlgkEu
 qRepWjUTqoAbgCdGWZo8YNoaVdlDRPnlO/dTUeAIUVA35HUWPdp4xV7HRKKXKSu0MhSu
 AXR0mO1sK3+tQHkMRjMxBfF+cF0MS8nXo25wwym51salW75f1KkADZ/rCZejVfHMqoXV
 89nA==
X-Received: by 10.60.146.134 with SMTP id tc6mr12737073oeb.95.1373058206079;
 Fri, 05 Jul 2013 14:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.76.130.204 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 14:02:55 -0700 (PDT)
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++gCFS=H+vc6hWYPXkYBp+w29cwL_zdHTVjU824_w_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <51D68B23.1020104@FreeBSD.org>
From: Jia-Shiun Li <jiashiun@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 05:02:55 +0800
Message-ID: <CAHNYxxMzXcoYp216a7S3v1edu391RwyJcn9_KOnBJk1ixJaHrg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: cpufreq not working as module on i386/amd64
To: Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
 <freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-hackers>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
 <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2013 21:03:26 -0000

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.