On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 13:40:20 +0600 Roman Mamedov <r...@romanrm.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 10:32:33 +0300 > Siarhei Siamashka <siarhei.siamas...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Are you are fine with offering only 'performance' and 'userspace' > > cpufreq governors in defconfigs? And kick out both 'ondemand' and > > 'interactive'? > > I'd leave 'ondemand' as available Unfortunately keeping 'ondemand' would be a very bad choice, because the startup scripts of certain linux distributions have an urge to activate it regardless of what the user actually wants. And thus we would be back to square one: unhappy users having very poor performance without any clue about what's going on. As long as the 'ondemand' governor is offered even as a non-default option, the problem is not really resolved. > (there needs to be a power-saving alternative to 'performance' that's > selectable without recompiling the kernel), Are you retracting your objection against 'interactive' then? Or what about the other alternatives? Maybe 'conservative'? > but I agree that 'performance' can be made the default. OK. -- Best regards, Siarhei Siamashka -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "linux-sunxi" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to linux-sunxi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
