On 30 November 2012 19:00, Andrey Konovalov andrey.konovalov@linaro.org wrote:
On 11/30/2012 02:23 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 30 November 2012 15:22, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) tixy@linaro.org wrote:
But if they aren't different why do we need your version?
To my understanding, having a separate topic for the interactive governor makes sense if some people need this governor, but do not want the rest of android code in their kernel. Viresh, is this the case? This seems to contradict with the initial idea of the single kernel tree (where all the releases should be made from), but may be valuable for the LTs/members and for some development work.
Viresh, I'd like an explicit answer to why do we need a separate topic for the interactive governor (in addition to the android one). We must be sure we would do that extra work for a reason.
The basic idea was: Everybody from ARM/Linaro/Maybe somebody else, should use the same and the latest version of this governor. And a lot of stuff really depends on it, all power measurements etc..
I have seen people using Tixy's tree (for-example) for their tests and this governor is only present in his android branch. Over that, what if somebody doesn't want to get linux-linaro or android stuff in kernel and yet want to use power with interactive governor.
That's it.
So it is from the same source as the android topic for llct. Just the topic by Viresh is a bit more recent, and is a few commits ahead of the android topic currently merged into llct.
Over that it would be available for ubuntu also.
This governor actually need somewhat better refresh rate. As it affects the way cpus behave in our tests.
I just wanted to chime in and make sure that people knew that there could be issues, because these things have a nasty habit of cropping up a few days before a monthly release, when there is little time to fix and test things.
Viresh,
I accept. Just to mention, i didn't wanted this to get in for this release.
@John/Andrey: Current linux-linaro surely doesn't have latest interactive governor in it. How do you guys suggest to get over this issue? I have few ideas:
- John pull it from my tree, and i will keep an eye on AOSP
... the problem here is that AOSP is not the interactive governor only. John (or the other "Android topic guy") would have to keep an eye on the rest of AOSP. Keeping two pars of eyes on the same thing requires coordination. Or are you volunteering to take over the android topic? :)
No, i am not volunteering for it. But after getting android stuff from AOSP, what's the harm in pulling my branch.
- John directly pick patches from AOSP
... and again, then you and the "Android topic guy" must synchronize somehow.
No. In that case i will not keep this in my tree. But it would be difficult for the android guy to keep an eye on interactive governor updates.
-- viresh