On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 22:06:22 +0530, R, Durgadoss wrote: > Hi, > > On Nov 5, 2011 2:16 AM, "R, Durgadoss" <durgadoss.r@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Also, there arises a problem of > >> where to put these kind of drivers ? Hence I propose the idea of having > >> a Current Management subsystem. > > > I love the idea. But is really more of an evolution of the regulator > > framework rather than a completely distinct concept and API? > > I agree. I went through the regulator framework to make this concept > fit in there. But, realistically this complete thing does not fit in > there exactly. Hence, my proposal for a new framework. I believe you'll have to elaborate a bit more than just "this complete thing does not fit in there exactly." The problem you are trying to tackle may be new to x86, because x86 is relatively new to the embedded / low-power systems, but other architectures have been doing that for over a decade. While the regulator subsystem presents itself as aiming at power savings to improve battery life, it doesn't seem fundamentally different from the need you described. Whether you lower current draw to save battery life or to prevent the hardware from dying, makes little difference, the underlying mechanisms should be pretty similar. Sending this post to the x86 platform driver list is the wrong approach IMHO. You'd rather ask on lists of other embedded architectures how they solved the problem on their side, and then see what it would take to build on their existing solutions. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
