On Jul 24, 2006, at 11:48 AM, David Brownell wrote: > On Monday 24 July 2006 10:29 am, Pavel Machek wrote: > >> That looks quite ugly to do in sysfs, indeed. > > Yes, it's long been one of the things I most dislike about this > PowerOP thing. > Not just the UI, but the models it reflects. > > So I was glad to see it split out as fully optional... although from > what I > see, the internal models in the code have derived from this sysfs > model, so > I'd argue those need to change too. Is there something specific in the internal model that are you referring to? > > It'd be lots better to just have named operating points that get > selected just > the /sys/power/state file selects the, erm, "sleep point". I've tried to fit sleep into the operating point concept before but sleep always ends up being a special case. The code has to check to see if the selected operating the "sleep point" and call the suspend function. I think tying in sleep to the op point concept needs more discussion and probably should be handled separately until we get further along with power op. btw, we are in complete agreement about using named points. This first set of patches is meant to introduce the operating point concept into the kernel without requiring massive changes to cpufreq. This layer extends the bottom part of cpufreq to enable the control of multiple parameters beyond just cpu frequency and voltage across architectures. Currently, cpufreq does not use named operating points so we need to make sure cpufreq can use the power op API and continue to function. This topic also ties into our other email discussion on creating op points and names are assigned to op points. > > >> But better run this by lkml. > > I'd rather see some rough consensus on this list that this is the > right way > to head, before running things like this by LKML. That is why we submitted here first:) We will figure out if there is a better interface for this patch to use by discussing with Greg or LKML. Meanwhile let's continue to discuss the ideas here for a bit. > > - Dave >
