Bill.Holler wrote: > 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? > No, not really, I'll remove it soon.
-Aubrey
