From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johnathan Hicks Subject: Re: An embedded-Linux power-management framework Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 20:48:15 -0400 Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Message-ID: <3D4B284F.20402@folkwolf.net> References: <20020802172802.GA32612@avalon.paulsen.org> <1028315477.18635.113.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> <1028312475.23390.63.camel@granite.austin.ibm.com> <1028330951.31733.5.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: To: acpi-devel List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Alan Cox wrote: > On Fri, 2002-08-02 at 19:20, Hollis Blanchard wrote: > >>There are situations (especially in dedicated-purpose devices running >>only a few hand-written applications) in which it helps to change some >>of these values without changing the others. Changing them all according >>to a single variable (CPU core frequency) could be very limiting. To my >>knowledge the cpufreq code also does not allow for this flexibility, but >>certainly it would be nice to add it. > > > So improve the cpufreq code to be a bit more controllable. Its the right > framework. It also needs a littlw tweaking for the cases where we change > STPCLK on x86's. Are you sure that cpufreq should be tweaked to manage STPCLK? Would it not make more sence to suck cpufreq into ACPI and call it during Tx (throttling) states if applicable? Of course I realise that might not be allowed by the ACPI spec, but some combination of cqufreq and the Tx states is a good idea... and optional for the user. --John --John ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf