From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Gross Subject: Re: Alternative Concept Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:34:58 -0700 Message-ID: <20070313203458.GA1213@linux.intel.com> References: <44ECFF94.3030506@gmail.com> <20061007023620.GD30380@dominikbrodowski.de> <20070313110851.GB10702@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: <20070313110851.GB10702@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: Eugeny Mints , pm list , Dominik Brodowski List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 12:08:51PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > = > > I believe this power parameter framework should solve many (if not = > > all) of the issues raised by using operating points as the base = > > abstraction and provide a common layer across architectures. Eugeny = > > and I have the beginnings of an API proposal for this framework, but = > > we wanted to get some high level feedback on the concepts so we can = > > adjust the API if necessary. So, comments? > = > Looks better than powerop certainly. > = > Perhaps first step would be to convert cpufreq to this new framework? The first step is to get a parameter framework in upstream. = It will take some time for the applications of this proposed framework to materialize and drive the maturing of the implementation. These won't get written unless a framework is upstream. = I don't know if having cpufreq plug into this framework will ever make a lot of sense. However; it would be simple to create a cpufreq driver that access the parameter layer for some selected platforms. (N800?) --mgross