CPUFreq HAL [PSARC/2007/679 FastTrack timeout 12/12/2007]

[David Chieu]

Mark Haywood wrote:

> ...
>
>>> Since the HAL code resides in the ON consolidation I see no issue 
>>> with it using the consolidation private interfaces?
>>
>> It seems to me one ought to use the most stable and documented 
>> interfaces available,
>> given that the code has to do the same inferences either way.  But I 
>> don't get to vote,
>> I'm only a licensee :-).
>
>
> And if the interfaces that you suggest we use were sufficient, I'd 
> agree with you. Since they are not, I think it is reasonable that we 
> use the consolidation private interfaces that were made available by 
> PSARC/2005/067. Of course, I don't get to vote either.
>
> If there is a reason that you feel the PM ioctls are likely to change, 
> then we should discuss it before this case proceeds any further.
>
> Mark

For the record, the project team agrees that PM ioctls are 
"consolidation private" as they are consistent with PSARC 2005/067. 
Additionally, HAL interfaces defined by this project are "volatile" they 
are consistent with PSARC 2005/399. Please ignore previously proposed 
"committed" level as it was incorrect.

-- David Chieu