On Sep 23, 2006, at 4:18 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > >> Note that I don't think PowerOp would cover all devices. In fact, I >> think most devices would remain autonomous or controlled as part of >> specific subsystems. The only things that PowerOp would bundle >> together >> would be things that aren't independent (and may not even be visible >> as >> "devices" in the usual Linux sense), but that have to be managed >> together in changing frequency/voltage. At least, that's the way I >> imagined it would work. > > Well, two objections to that > > a) current powerop code does not handle 256 CPU machine, because that > would need 256 independend bundles, and powerop has hardcoded "only > one bundle" rule. The 256 is only a temporary implementation limitation. > > b) having some devices controlled by powerop and some by specific > subsystem is indeed ugly. I'd hope powerop would cover all the > devices. (Or maybe cover _no_ devices). Userland should not need to > know if touchscreen is part of SoC or if it happens to be independend > on given machine. PowerOP does *not* cover devices. It covers system level parameters such clocks, buses, voltages. > > Pavel > -- > (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek > (cesky, pictures) > http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html > _______________________________________________ > linux-pm mailing list > linux-pm at lists.osdl.org > https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm >
