Re: [RFC] Mapping Device Power States

[David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1663 bytes --]

On Thursday 07 April 2005 4:56 pm, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 15:04 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> 
> > In short:  why should there be any Linux-wide notion like that?
> > Wouldn't trying to create one just be the problem of creating a
> > "Grand Unified Theory of Power Management"?
> 
> Hrm...
> 
> Each time somebody comes up with an attempt at providing a generic model
> that could be useful enough for most driver, you come up with your
> "grand unified bla bla bla" argument as a way of dismissal... not very
> constructive.

But that doesn't answer my question now, does it?

Talk about dismissal... I've mentioned that twice now.  Yours is
a strange reaction, given that level of exposure.  Maybe it's
just too darn close for comfort?

I _do_ happen to think that much of the reason the power management
stuff has stayed such a mess is that folk have been aiming towards
a "grand scheme", and that such a thing is counterproductive.  To
have this work, things need to be decentralized, not micro-managed.


The specific question Adam asked is something I've been thinking
about off and on.  It relates to the issue of what should happen
to the sysfs power/state files.

To perhaps oversimplify things, Adam asked how to change the current
"there is such a global state" model ... and my response was more
at the level of a "that seems like the wrong model, what's the real
problem you want to address?" question.

Maybe there really is something essential in such a global model.
If that's the case, my questions will have good answers...


It's not "constructive" to attack someone for asking honest
questions now, is it???



[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]