On Wednesday 14 March 2007 3:08 pm, Scott E. Preece wrote: > | > > | > But shouldn't it be useful on every platform? .. > | > | I couldn't know. This "alternative concept" hasn't gotten very far > | into the hand-waving stage, much less beyond it into proposed interface > | or (gasp!) implementations. Platforms that don't *have* those particular > | interdependencies should not of course incur costs to implement them... > --- > > Well, that's fine if the platform you use is the current design > center. So you think that platforms which don't have such interdependencies should incur costs and complexity to address problems they don't have. Why? > For the rest of us, though, all the stuff you're currently > doing for power management is wasted effort and why should we incur > costs to work around them? Me personally? What specifically are you referring to, and in what respects would that be "wasted" effort? > Today, we just configure it all out and put > in our own stuff. We would prefer to have a mainstream framework that > could be used to meet both Intel laptop needs and embedded device needs... I don't think I ever said anything against that notion of having PM infrastructure capable of handling both PC and embedded configs. Not that I've seen a framework that handles either one well -- yet! -- so such notions haven't yet progressed to being testable theories. Against the notion of infrastructure (PM or otherwise) that's not well designed or defined -- certainly I've argued. That includes much current PM infrastructure, and most recent proposals. - Dave _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
