From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Gross Subject: Re: So, what's the status on the recent patches here? Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:13:54 -0700 Message-ID: <20060830221354.GA12186@linux.intel.com> References: <20060823122849.GA23456@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20060825195543.GA9568@elf.ucw.cz> <20060826101820.GI10257@elf.ucw.cz> <20060826134653.GQ10257@elf.ucw.cz> <20060828164038.GA17944@linux.intel.com> <20060828173957.GF30105@elf.ucw.cz> Reply-To: mgross@linux.intel.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060828173957.GF30105@elf.ucw.cz> 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: Pavel Machek Cc: linux-pm@lists.osdl.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 07:39:57PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Mon 2006-08-28 09:40:38, Mark Gross wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 03:46:53PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > On Sat 2006-08-26 17:30:40, Vitaly Wool wrote: > > > > On 8/26/06, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > Because 8388608 policies is clearly not reasonable, powerop can not > > > help here, and something better should be developed... like power > > > domains someone proposed here. > > > = > > > (Or to say it in another words, powerop forces one big power domain, > > > which is bad model for notebook-style machine). > > = > > I doubt notebook-style machines will ever us power op in any > > significant way. HPC and embedded will be the first users. > = > I agree here... power op look useless for notebooks. But I doubt power > op authors would agree... Concluding that it will be useless for notebooks may be premature. I see powerop as the bottom of an future PM stack. As the upper layers take shape who knows what platforms will use it? > = > > Power domains will likely build on top power op. > > = > > Power domains adds complexities themselves. Dealing with > > dependencies and constraints between domains will be a challenge. > = > Once we have power domains in/solved... do we still need power op? I > thought power op could be useful for solving constrains _inside_ one > domain, but... Power domains and the components within them will likely be accessed as operating points. I think we need to build the power domain abstractions on top of operating points. This is why I want to see support for multiple power_op_driver instances or a story for how operating points are added to a running system or even platform to enable and deal with domains. --mgross