Ikhwan Lee wrote: > 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? parameter framework would eventually replace clock framework. Separate clock and voltage frameworks lead to code and functionality duplication and do not address such things as relationship between clocks and voltages, clock/voltage/power domains, etc needed for aggressive power management. Basically a good way of thinking about parameter framework is that parameter framework would start from existed clock framework and gradually evolve by addressing voltages, relationship between clocks and voltages, domains. Eventually clock framework functionality would be a part of power parameter framework. Thanks, Eugeny > >> 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 > _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
