From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Brownell Subject: Re: Alternative Concept Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:23:16 -0700 Message-ID: <200703141623.16643.david-b@pacbell.net> References: <200703142208.l2EM8uoV007606@olwen.urbana.css.mot.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200703142208.l2EM8uoV007606@olwen.urbana.css.mot.com> Content-Disposition: inline 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: "Scott E. Preece" Cc: linux-pm@lists.osdl.org, linux@dominikbrodowski.net, pavel@ucw.cz List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org 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 particul= ar > | 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