Re: [PATCH][2.5.32] CPU frequency and voltage scaling (0/4)

[Linus Torvalds]

On 28 Aug 2002, Alan Cox wrote:
> 
> If you look at the papers on the original ARM cpufreq code you'll see a
> case where very long granuality user driven policy is pretty much
> essential. The kernel sometimes does not have enough information.

Alan, that is _not_ the point here.

It's ok to tell the kernel these "long-term" policies. But it has to be 
told as a POLICY, not as a random number. Because I can show you a hundred 
other cases where the user mode code does _not_have_a_clue_.

That's my argument. The kernel should be given a _policy_, not a "this 
frequency". Because a frequency is provably not enough, and can be quite 
hurtful.

And I do not want to get people used to passing in frequencies, when I can 
absolutely _prove_ that it's the wrong thing for 99% of all uses.

		Linus