Igor Stoppa wrote: > >> So, in my thinking a devoted entity should exist to deal with such questions in >> regard to such shared pm resources. This entity is policy manager. Thus I see a >> need in an API for policy managers to be presented. > > Your policy manager becomes too invasive and even _mandatory_ because it > becomes the only way to perform resource management. > > With a decentralised approach, instead, only people who _want_ to use > the policy manager can include it, while otherwise they rely on the > automatic handling. > Seems you both are considering two opposite extremities. Why don't consider things as its nature? Every computer system has a subsystem delivering resources to its elements, i.e subsystem delivering clocks - clock subsystem, subsystem delivering power - power subsystem. So you need to corresponding kernel subsystems to control that couple. That is, there is a driver layer, there is clock/voltage subsytems and eventually there is a policy manager, i.e clock/volatge subsystem becomes a dealer for different devices and also it becomes a dealer for user space applications (i.e. policy managers). As a thought, we already use an irq subsystem that provides resource - interrupt, some ideas might be taken there. Thanks, Dmitry _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
