Re: Alternative Concept

[David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>]

On Wednesday 14 March 2007 3:08 pm, Scott E. Preece wrote:
> | > 
> | > But shouldn't it be useful on every platform? ..
> | 
> | I couldn't know.  This "alternative concept" hasn't gotten very far
> | into the hand-waving stage, much less beyond it into proposed interface
> | or (gasp!) implementations.  Platforms that don't *have* those particular
> | interdependencies should not of course incur costs to implement them...
> ---
> 
> Well, that's fine if the platform you use is the current design
> center.

So you think that platforms which don't have such interdependencies
should incur costs and complexity to address problems they don't have.
Why?


> For the rest of us, though, all the stuff you're currently 
> doing for power management is wasted effort and why should we incur
> costs to work around them? 

Me personally?  What specifically are you referring to, and
in what respects would that be "wasted" effort?


> Today, we just configure it all out and put 
> in our own stuff. We would prefer to have a mainstream framework that
> could be used to meet both Intel laptop needs and embedded device needs...

I don't think I ever said anything against that notion of having PM
infrastructure capable of handling both PC and embedded configs.  Not
that I've seen a framework that handles either one well -- yet! -- so
such notions haven't yet progressed to being testable theories.

Against the notion of infrastructure (PM or otherwise) that's not
well designed or defined -- certainly I've argued.  That includes
much current PM infrastructure, and most recent proposals.

- Dave