From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Brownell Subject: Re: Alternative Concept Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 16:07:30 -0700 Message-ID: <200703151607.31269.david-b@pacbell.net> References: <200703151329.l2FDTh3B000785@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: <200703151329.l2FDTh3B000785@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 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 nee= ds... > | = > | 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 > = > =