On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 06:02:03PM +0200, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > Hi Mark, > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 08:38:21AM -0700, Mark Gross wrote: > > > > I think that this might be much easier to implement than your PowerOP / > > > > operating points / PM core / PowerOP - cpufreq interaction patches. As a > > > > matter of fact, some parts of your operating points table infrastructure > > > > may be usable for the concept outlined above. So, what do you think? What > > > > does everyone else involved think about this alternative approach? > > > > > > Looks okay to me. Unlike powerop design, this actually works for > > > everyone. > > > > Pavel, if you would pay attention better you would notice that at the > > underneath of what Dominic is talking about is a concept of *more knobs* > > for controlling platform power states. This is what PowerOP is trying > > to bring to the table. > > Oh no. PowerOP does it top->bottom; I try to do it bototm->top. That's the > difference, and it is a _fundamental_ difference. Yes, both will lead to a > concept of "operating points" on systems which may need it. But still the > way you get there (which is important if you want to keep it flexible, and > you do want to keep it flexible to allow for cpufreq) is different. I'll take a closer look at both. It really looks to me that folks are in violent agreement more than anything else. I also prefer a bottom->top approach. --mgross > > > PowerOP is not a policy engine like what Dominic is talking about. And > > what Dominic is talking about will need to build on something that will > > end up looking so much like power op that it wont be funny. > > This I dare to doubt. > > Thanks, > Dominik
