From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH] PowerOP, PowerOP Core, 1/2 Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 23:45:17 +0200 Message-ID: <20060924214517.GA1935@elf.ucw.cz> References: <200609222034.k8MKYoDK008487@olwen.urbana.css.mot.com> <20060923111805.GF20778@elf.ucw.cz> <6c3c9c9fa4961ca081c2742684201418@nomadgs.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: <6c3c9c9fa4961ca081c2742684201418@nomadgs.com> 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: Matthew Locke Cc: linux-pm@lists.osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Hi! > >Well, two objections to that > > > >a) current powerop code does not handle 256 CPU machine, because that > >would need 256 independend bundles, and powerop has hardcoded "only > >one bundle" rule. > = > The 256 is only a temporary implementation limitation. Really? 256 CPUs mean 2^256 states. How do you handle that without introducing vectors? > >b) having some devices controlled by powerop and some by specific > >subsystem is indeed ugly. I'd hope powerop would cover all the > >devices. (Or maybe cover _no_ devices). Userland should not need to > >know if touchscreen is part of SoC or if it happens to be independend > >on given machine. > = > PowerOP does *not* cover devices. It covers system level parameters = > such clocks, buses, voltages. I've seen "usb enabled" in one of examples.. and that sure seems like device to me. Pavel -- = (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blo= g.html