From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] ACPI: Idle Processor PM Improvements Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 20:43:17 +0100 Message-ID: <20060830194317.GA9116@srcf.ucam.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([217.147.92.49]:61836 "EHLO vavatch.codon.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751396AbWH3ToG (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:44:06 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" Cc: Adam Belay , "Brown, Len" , ACPI ML , Linux Kernel ML , Dominik Brodowski , Arjan van de Ven , devel@laptop.org On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 11:40:16AM -0700, Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote: (Added devel@laptop.org to the Cc:) > While we are at cleaning up the code, I think it will be much better to > move out C-state policy out of this acpi code altogether. We should have That would be helpful. For the One Laptop Per Child project (or whatever it's called today), it would be advantageous to run without acpi. At the moment that would cost us deeper C states, so an interface to allow a platform driver to register and provide the same functionality without code duplication would be helpful. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org