On 09/ 3/08 05:07 PM, Li, Aubrey wrote: > Napanda Pemmaiah wrote: > > >> On 09/03/08 15:02, Bill Holler wrote: >> >>> On 09/ 3/08 02:25 PM, Napanda Pemmaiah wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Bill, >>>> >>>> Since the cpupm-gate is merged with ONNV_97, it has the latest P >>>> and T-State related code, and Aubrey has also resolved all the >>>> conflicts in the cpupm-gate during the merge and therefore >>>> there is nothing to remove. >>>> I assume ONVV_97 should already be in opensolaris repository, but I >>>> am not very sure about the lag between opensolaris repo and nevada. >>>> Is there any reason of not wanting to putback into >>>> ON gate? >>>> >>>> >>> Anything we do not know is there should not be put back. ;-) >>> As far as I know, only new Deep C-State work is in cpupm-gate. >>> >> It also has powertop related changes, but I don't know if it effects >> the C-State code changes. >> >> > Previously, Mark is also working on the cpupm-gate to re-construct cpupm > framework, but somehow cpupm-gate is put aside later. > And after the new framework and T-state related code are into onnv_97, > the > cpupm-gate only has deep cstate work and powertop. > I merged with powertop repo only for development convenience but now I > found it's incovenient for code merge. We can remove powertop from > cpupm-gate. > > What do you think? > > Thanks, > -Aubrey >
Removing the new powertop work sounds reasonable. Will that be difficult? Will we lose powertop features we need for C-State testing? Bill
