From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Gross Subject: Re: Alternative Concept [Was: Re: [RFC] CPUFreq PowerOP integration, Intro 0/3] Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 14:56:06 -0700 Message-ID: <20061016215606.GB18975@linux.intel.com> References: <44ECFF94.3030506@gmail.com> <20061007023620.GD30380@dominikbrodowski.de> <20061008071649.GB5672@ucw.cz> <20061012153821.GA30804@linux.intel.com> <20061012160203.GA27219@isilmar.linta.de> 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: <20061012160203.GA27219@isilmar.linta.de> 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: Dominik Brodowski Cc: pm list List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 06:02:03PM +0200, Dominik Brodowski wrote: > Hi Mark, > = > On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 08:38:21AM -0700, Mark Gross wrote: > > > > I think that this might be much easier to implement than your Power= OP / > > > > operating points / PM core / PowerOP - cpufreq interaction patches.= As a > > > > matter of fact, some parts of your operating points table infrastru= cture > > > > may be usable for the concept outlined above. So, what do you think= ? What > > > > does everyone else involved think about this alternative approach? > > > = > > > Looks okay to me. Unlike powerop design, this actually works for > > > everyone. > > = > > Pavel, if you would pay attention better you would notice that at the > > underneath of what Dominic is talking about is a concept of *more knobs* > > for controlling platform power states. This is what PowerOP is trying > > to bring to the table. = > = > Oh no. PowerOP does it top->bottom; I try to do it bototm->top. That's the > difference, and it is a _fundamental_ difference. Yes, both will lead to a > concept of "operating points" on systems which may need it. But still the > way you get there (which is important if you want to keep it flexible, and > you do want to keep it flexible to allow for cpufreq) is different. I'll take a closer look at both. It really looks to me that folks are in violent agreement more than anything else. I also prefer a bottom->top approach. --mgross > = > > PowerOP is not a policy engine like what Dominic is talking about. And > > what Dominic is talking about will need to build on something that will > > end up looking so much like power op that it wont be funny. > = > This I dare to doubt. > = > Thanks, > Dominik