| From: David Brownell<david-b@xxxxxxxxxxx> | | 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? --- Well, yes. That's part of having a solution that addresses the whole community and not a subset. Linux is already full of things that trade off benefits for one platform against costs for another platform. --- | | > 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? --- As noted in previous apology, I was speaking over-broadly. However, as I said, we currently configure out cpufreq and ACPI support, among other things, so they represent wasted effort from the particular perspective of our products. I was speaking rhetorically - just saying that the work done on cpufreq and ACPI was "wasted effort" in exactly the same sense that work spent on supporting the PM needs of embedded devices would be. --- | | > 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. --- Thanks - I can agree with that! scott -- scott preece motorola mobile devices, il67, 1800 s. oak st., champaign, il 61820 e-mail: preece@xxxxxxxxxxxx fax: +1-217-384-8550 phone: +1-217-384-8589 cell: +1-217-433-6114 pager: 2174336114@xxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
