On Mon 2006-08-28 09:40:38, Mark Gross wrote: > On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 03:46:53PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Sat 2006-08-26 17:30:40, Vitaly Wool wrote: > > > On 8/26/06, Pavel Machek <pavel at suse.cz> wrote: > > Because 8388608 policies is clearly not reasonable, powerop can not > > help here, and something better should be developed... like power > > domains someone proposed here. > > > > (Or to say it in another words, powerop forces one big power domain, > > which is bad model for notebook-style machine). > > I doubt notebook-style machines will ever us power op in any > significant way. HPC and embedded will be the first users. I agree here... power op look useless for notebooks. But I doubt power op authors would agree... > Power domains will likely build on top power op. > > Power domains adds complexities themselves. Dealing with > dependencies and constraints between domains will be a challenge. Once we have power domains in/solved... do we still need power op? I thought power op could be useful for solving constrains _inside_ one domain, but... Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
