On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 17:31 +0530, Arun R Bharadwaj wrote: > > > Uhm, no, it would mean ACPI putting its idle routines on the same level > > as all others. > > > > Putting them all on the same level would mean, we need an > enable/disable routine to enable only the currently active routines. What's this enable/disable stuff about? > Also, the way governor works is that, it assumes that idle routines > are indexed in the increasing order of power benefit that can be got > out of the state. So this would get messed up. Right, which is why I initially had a power-savings field in my proposal, so it could weight the power savings vs the wakeup latency. http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/8/27/159 There it was said that was exactly what these governors were doing, seems its not. > > Sounds like something is wrong alright. If you can register an idle > > routine you should be able to unregister it too. > > > > Yes, we can register and unregister in a clean way now. > Consider this. We have a set of routines A, B, C currently registered. > Now a module comes and registers D and E, and later on at some point > of time wants to unregister. So how do you keep track of what all idle > routines the module registered and unregister only those? > Best way to do that is a stack, which is how I have currently > implemented. Right, so destroy that inner set thing, that way we only have one left ;-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
