Re: [linux-pm] Re: PowerOP Take 2 0/3 Intro

From: Patrick Mochel (mochel_at_digitalimplant.org)
Date: 08/31/05

  • Next message: Allen Akin: "Re: State of Linux graphics" 
    Date:	Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:04:18 -0700 (PDT)
To: Todd Poynor <tpoynor@mvista.com>

    On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Todd Poynor wrote:

    > In case it's getting lost in all these details, the main point of all
    > this is to pose the question: "are arbitrary power parameters arranged
    > into a set with mutually consistent values (called here an operating
    > point) a good low-level abstraction for system power management of a
    > wide variety of platforms?" Thanks,

    Yes, I think so. This seems to be one of the main concerns of the embedded
    platform developers, especially e.g. the OMAP people.

    The thing I'm most concerned about is integration with other mainstream
    platforms. cpufreq works reasonably well for desktop and laptop system,
    for CPU frequency. But, I expect to see more flexibility in the power
    management parameters in other aspects of the system in the near future.

    How do we deal with that? If it's PowerOP, then how does it interact with
    cpufreq and its user space tools? If it's used in conjunction (using
    cpufreq for the CPUs and PowerOP for everything else), what can we do to
    integrate the UI?

    Personally I think that they are fine sitting side by side for now, but we
    need to do some work on the low-level tools. For one, setting 8 values in
    sysfs to effect a change is not very friendly. For another, it took a long
    time to get the cpufreq stuff right. How do we learn from that and avoid
    that?

    Thanks,

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

  • Next message: Allen Akin: "Re: State of Linux graphics"