From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Brownell Subject: Re: Alternative Concept Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:17:45 -0700 Message-ID: <200703201317.46550.david-b@pacbell.net> References: <44ECFF94.3030506@gmail.com> <45FFF697.8080101@gmail.com> <1174405005.25744.108.camel@Dogbert.NOE.nokia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1174405005.25744.108.camel@Dogbert.NOE.nokia.com> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Igor Stoppa Cc: Dominik Brodowski , linux-pm@lists.osdl.org, Pavel Machek List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 20 March 2007 8:36 am, Igor Stoppa wrote: > Your approach is to just label policy what you want to kick out of the > driver =3D) Nice one! I had a similar reaction ... although, I was also wondering exactly what benefit would come from kicking that stuff out of drivers, and thus needing to rewrite/retest a lot of them. > > Ok, seems you are happy with current clock framework and advocating it > > to be as is. > > As I wrote several times i haven't seen yet a reason to replace it; > certainly there is space for improvement but so far this proposal has > not been on the lines of: how to improve the clk fw Yes. This thread is unfortunately very much a "where's the beef". I was afraid that was what would happen, given the complete lack of interface proposal. I suspect that until some non-troll content is provided, I'll tune out. > > Are you against addition some features to it, such as enable/disable = > > "turn the unused clock off" rule, That'd be what we call a "misfeature", or "bug". Are you suggesting this be done to the IRQ subsystem too? It has a rule that unused IRQs must be turned off. Likewise that IRQs not used as wake events shouldn't be enabled as wake events. I hope you're not restricting your addition of misfeatures to just the clock framework! > > Besides that it is meaningless for you, do you have any technical > > objections for that? > > Do you mean apart from the fact that it means hijacking the fw? > Noooo, not at all. I take it that was meant to be sarcasm... Me, yes I have already presented technical objections, all of which appear to have been ignored. > But why is it meaningful to you? Why can't you interact with the entity > that is actually controlling a certain clock, rather than with the clock > itself? Good question. I hope that one doesn't get ignored, too. - Dave