* Re: [linux-pm] Notes from the Boston Linux Power Management Mini-summit - August 9th, 2010
[not found] ` <20100816144914.GB10354@sirena.org.uk>
@ 2010-08-17 1:09 ` Bryan Huntsman
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Bryan Huntsman @ 2010-08-17 1:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Brown
Cc: Len Brown, Linux Power Management List, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
linux-arm-msm
Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 01:36:33AM -0400, Len Brown wrote:
>
>> A gap:
>>
>> On OMAP, bus control is independent of CPU frequency control,
>> so cpufreq and cpuidle don't quite fit the bill.
>>
>> Perhaps a "bus-idle" analogous to "cpu-idle" may be appropriate?
>
> FWIW this applies to a bunch of other embedded processors too - OMAP
> isn't particularly unique here, though it's one of the furthest along in
> terms of exploting this in mainline Linux.
This capability would benefit MSM as well. We're looking into a
soc-specific implementation using Pat Pannuto's "pseudo" platform bus
extensions (discussed here http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/8/10/389). After
we have something working, I would be curious to see if some common
functionality could be extracted into a more generic mechanism.
- Bryan
--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread