On Wednesday 09 March 2005 7:01 am, Jordan Crouse wrote: > On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 06:00:48 -0800 (PST) > "Patrick Mochel" <mochel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Ah, I see what you're saying. I think it is per-class, but I also think > > that it's policy that should exist in Userspace. > > DPM implements a good model of this already (albeit for voltage and frequency stepping) > through the sysfs, which I like, especially for embedded systems, where 'cat' is all that > is needed to write a new policy. I also am a fan of consolidating the policy into a single > location, rather then spreading out the power controls - this reduces the load and intelligence > of a power policy user agent. Thing is, I really disliked the "policy" specs I saw in at least the 2.4 versions of the MontaVista/IBM DPM stuff. Nasty string parsing and all that ... which didn't generalize well at all. There's something to be said for an integrated policy ... but at the same time, cramming too much stuff into the bag can leave you with a lot of holes ripped in it by sharp corners sticking out! There are times it's better to use more than one bag. :)
