Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH] PowerOP, PowerOP Core, 1/2

[Matthew Locke]

On Sep 23, 2006, at 4:18 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:

> Hi!
>
> > Note that I don't think PowerOp would cover all devices. In fact, I
> > think most devices would remain autonomous or controlled as part of
> > specific subsystems. The only things that PowerOp would bundle 
> > together
> > would be things that aren't independent (and may not even be visible 
> > as
> > "devices" in the usual Linux sense), but that have to be managed
> > together in changing frequency/voltage. At least, that's the way I
> > imagined it would work.
>
> Well, two objections to that
>
> a) current powerop code does not handle 256 CPU machine, because that
> would need 256 independend bundles, and powerop has hardcoded "only
> one bundle" rule.

The 256 is only a temporary implementation limitation.

> b) having some devices controlled by powerop and some by specific
> subsystem is indeed ugly. I'd hope powerop would cover all the
> devices. (Or maybe cover _no_ devices). Userland should not need to
> know if touchscreen is part of SoC or if it happens to be independend
> on given machine.

PowerOP does *not* cover devices.  It covers system level parameters 
such clocks, buses, voltages.

> 								Pavel
> --
> (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
> (cesky, pictures) 
> http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
> _______________________________________________
> linux-pm mailing list
> linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/