Hi Pavel, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > >>> when not needed. Based on this default behavior, there might be certain >>> cases when a system-level manager can interact with them by making the >> the system-level manager has to be arch-dependent in this case >>> _localised_ power saving less aggressive, thus optimiising the global >>> saves/performance. So if others than you are happy with just the >>> distributed approach, they can avoid using the framework, while you can >>> just put it on top and achive the same power saving that you would get >>> in case 1 >> Ok, seems you are happy with current clock framework and advocating it >> to be as is. >> Are you against addition some features to it, such as enable/disable >> "turn the unused clock off" > > What kind of debate is this?! > > Of course I and everyone else is against adding features without > _really good_ explanation why this is needed. And no, you should not > even ask unless you have patch ready, If I understand you correctly, you are against big debates unless a patch is ready, I agree to that if someone tries to speculate on adding some feature which is easily can be shown as a patch, but before doing something more complex, say new subsystem, it is worth to make sure whether your intention makes sense at all, and if it does make sense, to discuss possible design details. I think it's better then reviewing of a patch set, then get an agreement the patches is ok and eventually decide the thing the patches are adding is unneeded. If you feel people ask and discuss the same things again and again perhaps it is time to create some FAQ list. the first question would be: Q: Does Linux Power management take care about personal computers only? A: ???? Thanks, Dmitry P.S. Are there special Etiquette notes for the list? _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
