From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: cpufreq user<->kernel interface removal [was Re: community PM requirements/issues and PowerOP] Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 15:20:19 +0200 Message-ID: <20060917132019.GN2741@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20060914162623.GA6867@linux.intel.com> <20060917123759.GD2741@elf.ucw.cz> 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: 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: Vitaly Wool Cc: lkml@elf.ucw.cz.kroah.org, Preece Scott-PREECE , pm list List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Sun 2006-09-17 17:10:36, Vitaly Wool wrote: > Pavel, > = > On 9/17/06, Pavel Machek wrote: > >?? zaurus uses cpufreq just fine, and you could do that on omap. You'd > >not have powersavings coming out of powering down devices, but > >otherwise it should be doable. > = > I do think you'd better broaden your views here ;) > cpufreq as it is is not well-suitable for complex power management > cases where you need to switch between multiple oscillators/clock > sources/PLLs etc to gain the most efficien power management. > Zaurus is not that complicated in PM AFAIK and I'm sure it could be > even better if it used PowerOP or similar solution. :) Well, I do think you'd better broaden your views here ;) Solutions you propose are not well-suitable for big systems, like 8 cpu server box with 40 PCI devices. What we need to do is something that works well from whole range, from 770 through thinkpad x60 to 8x Xeon server. Pavel -- = (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blo= g.html