Re: RE: on-ness

[Patrick Mochel <mochel@linux.intel.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1163 bytes --]

On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 09:12:31AM -0500, Scott E. Preece wrote:

> So, is the sum of this conversation to this point that it simply isn't
> possible to come up with a set of names and attributes that are
> meaningful across devices? Or might it be possible to map the set of
> special conditions (like the "NoSoftReset" below) to a common vocabulary
> that a device could expose to power management and that a generic,
> cross-platform power management facility could map to system states and
> transitions?

Both. :-)

You can come up with some names and attributes that are common across
devices, and those should be leveraged when possible. But, I don't think
it's possible, or worthwhile, to try to map every device state to a common,
generic (i.e. limited) vocabulary. 

You want drivers to export the states that they know about, in the format
that makes the most to them (e.g. PCI D0-D3), instead of having them 
scratch their head about what to name the states. 

>From that point (when they're exported), it's pretty simple to condense the
vocbulary into something that makes more sense for the platform (like, "on",
"off", "more off", etc).


	Patrick

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