Re: Alternative Concept

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

On Thursday 15 March 2007 6:29 am, Scott E. Preece wrote:

> | > 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?
> ---
> 
> As noted in previous apology, I was speaking over-broadly. However, as I
> said, we currently configure out cpufreq and ACPI support,

ACPI -- goes without saying, unless you're on x86 or ia64.

cpufreq -- similar, although some non-x86 versions do exist, and seem
to provide limited power savings in a few cases (in conjunction with
voltage scaling, since the cost of N cpu cycles is otherwise constant).


> among other 
> things, so they represent wasted effort from the particular perspective
> of our products. I was speaking rhetorically - just saying that the work
> done on cpufreq and ACPI was "wasted effort" in exactly the same sense
> that work spent on supporting the PM needs of embedded devices would be.

I still don't follow.  I think I'll just count your original response
as one of those "should not have written that" posts most folk suffer
from on occasion.

- Dave


> ---
> | 
> | > 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.
> ---
> 
> Thanks - I can agree with that!
> 
> scott 
> 
> -- 
> scott preece
> motorola mobile devices, il67, 1800 s. oak st., champaign, il  61820  
> e-mail:	preece@motorola.com	fax:	+1-217-384-8550
> phone:	+1-217-384-8589	cell: +1-217-433-6114	pager: 2174336114@vtext.com
> 
>