Re: community PM requirements/issues and PowerOP [Was: Re: So, what's the status on the recent patches here?]

Vitaly Wool
2006-09-14T13:15:04Z

Pavel,

On 9/14/06, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:
>
> > Pavel,
>
> > > > operating points it is possible to implement the "cpufreq frequency
> > > > selection logic" in user space and having such functionality in the kernel
> > > > just violates the main rule of having everything possible outside of the
> > > > kernel.
> > >
> > > You got the rules wrong. "Keep the code out of kernel" is important
> > > rule, but probably not the main one.
> >
> > from aside, it looks like you're choosing 'rules' and assign then
> > 'priorities' in a too arbitrary way which is by a strange accident
> > fits your point of view best of all.
> > May I remind you that Linux world is not only laptops and Sharp Zaurus? ;)
>
> Actually, laptops and zauruses seem to be the only "interesting"
> machines from pm perspective. Then there are Motorola cellphones, but
> Motorola tried hard not to enable users changing kernel... so they are
> irrelevant.

Well, I never said Zaurus was no good :)
Please don't forget about Nokia 770 and its possible follow-ups.
Also, please keep in mind that if we come to a joint PM solution that
is in mainline, Motorola will use it... and will be contributing
changes back to the community. If there was a PM solution adopted in
mainline which fit the needs of embedded devices, more vendors would
turn to using Linux.
I. e., what prevents Sharp from making a open-code Lnux-based cell
phone? I do think that the absense of PM framework suitable for
embedded is one of the main engineering reasons... So let us broaden
our views and work together :)

Vitaly