From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Brownell Subject: Re: [RFC] PowerOP Take 3, sysfs UI core 2/5 Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 17:32:55 -0700 Message-ID: <200607241732.57588.david-b@pacbell.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline 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: Preece Scott-PREECE Cc: patrick.mochel@intel.com, Pavel Machek , Matthew Locke , linux-pm@lists.osdl.org, sampsa.fabritius@nokia.com, linux@dominikbrodowski.net List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Monday 24 July 2006 2:58 pm, Preece Scott-PREECE wrote: > If they're defined dynamically, you can change them without recompiling > the system, building a new rootfs image, etc. This is especially useful > during development and tuning of systems built on new hardware, since > the set of Ops available (that is, that are documented by the chip > vendor to work) can vary over time and even board-to-board. I could easily buy such a mechanism being dependent on EXPERIMENTAL, for use with developer/prototype boards ... thanks for that scenario. But I have a harder time seeing it used in production systems, burnt into flash on a manufacturing line that already had to qualify that new hardware before the next production run (of say 10,000 units) was approved by the powers-that-be. - Dave > > I meant "they could suggest how to do the sysfs thing, in reasonable = > > way". Like echo new_config > file is extermely ugly, but perhaps = > > configfs is suitable? > = > Makes some sense. But I'm still puzzled why _creating_ an operating > point would be done outside of the arch/.../board-xx.c file. =