Hi, On 3/14/07, Mark Gross <mgross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 12:08:51PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > I believe this power parameter framework should solve many (if not > > > all) of the issues raised by using operating points as the base > > > abstraction and provide a common layer across architectures. Eugeny > > > and I have the beginnings of an API proposal for this framework, but > > > we wanted to get some high level feedback on the concepts so we can > > > adjust the API if necessary. So, comments? > > > > Looks better than powerop certainly. I also think this power parameter framework is a lot easier to adopt. PowerOp ideas can be built on top of this framework later. > > Perhaps first step would be to convert cpufreq to this new framework? > > The first step is to get a parameter framework in upstream. Would this involve replacing the clock framework, or are they going to coexist? > It will take some time for the applications of this proposed framework > to materialize and drive the maturing of the implementation. These > won't get written unless a framework is upstream. > > I don't know if having cpufreq plug into this framework will ever make a > lot of sense. However; it would be simple to create a cpufreq driver > that access the parameter layer for some selected platforms. (N800?) > > --mgross > _______________________________________________ > linux-pm mailing list > linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm > It seems that this power parameter framework is more toward dynamic (or runtime) power management of various devices on a platform. We should make sure it does not break (and is not broken by) system suspend/resume operations. ikhwan _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
