On Thursday 07 April 2005 4:56 pm, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 15:04 -0700, David Brownell wrote: > > > In short: why should there be any Linux-wide notion like that? > > Wouldn't trying to create one just be the problem of creating a > > "Grand Unified Theory of Power Management"? > > Hrm... > > Each time somebody comes up with an attempt at providing a generic model > that could be useful enough for most driver, you come up with your > "grand unified bla bla bla" argument as a way of dismissal... not very > constructive. But that doesn't answer my question now, does it? Talk about dismissal... I've mentioned that twice now. Yours is a strange reaction, given that level of exposure. Maybe it's just too darn close for comfort? I _do_ happen to think that much of the reason the power management stuff has stayed such a mess is that folk have been aiming towards a "grand scheme", and that such a thing is counterproductive. To have this work, things need to be decentralized, not micro-managed. The specific question Adam asked is something I've been thinking about off and on. It relates to the issue of what should happen to the sysfs power/state files. To perhaps oversimplify things, Adam asked how to change the current "there is such a global state" model ... and my response was more at the level of a "that seems like the wrong model, what's the real problem you want to address?" question. Maybe there really is something essential in such a global model. If that's the case, my questions will have good answers... It's not "constructive" to attack someone for asking honest questions now, is it???
