From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Brownell Subject: Re: [RFC] Mapping Device Power States Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 17:39:56 -0700 Message-ID: <200504071739.56962.david-b@pacbell.net> References: <1112909150.21887.18.camel@linux.site> <200504071504.47531.david-b@pacbell.net> <1112918184.9568.335.camel@gaston> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============61110806271238083==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1112918184.9568.335.camel@gaston> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: Adam Belay , Linux-pm mailing list List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org --===============61110806271238083== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline 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??? --===============61110806271238083== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --===============61110806271238083==--