On Wed 2006-08-30 15:13:54, Mark Gross wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 07:39:57PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > 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... > > Concluding that it will be useless for notebooks may be premature. > > I see powerop as the bottom of an future PM stack. As the upper layers > take shape who knows what platforms will use it? Well, PCs are generaly designed in a way where individual devices are separate, and that means that we do not have linked-parameters-problem powerop tries to solve. But okay, perhaps someone created such notebook in future... > > > 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... > > Power domains and the components within them will likely be accessed as > operating points. I think we need to build the power domain > abstractions on top of operating points. This is why I want to see > support for multiple power_op_driver instances or a story for how > operating points are added to a running system or even platform to > enable and deal with domains. Yes, multiple power_op_drivers -- one per power domain -- makes some sense. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
