From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tim Bird Subject: Re: PowerOp Design and working patch Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 11:25:28 -0700 Message-ID: <44CF9C98.4030100@am.sony.com> References: <242d827d33807b6b46608a26ed29c273@mvista.com> <20060728233837.GG2140@kroah.com> <20060729004546.GA3917@kroah.com> <1c70fd37e4eb876295e0194e2b8725d6@mvista.com> <44CBB1E0.3030908@gmail.com> <62e4476a851bbed395b509023edc5c5c@mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: 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: Vitaly Wool Cc: David Singleton , linux-pm@lists.osdl.org, david singleton List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Vitaly Wool wrote: > Within the given use case for a particular board, given the > possibility of runtime OP creation, there shouldn't be any need to > specify ALL the OPs. ... > Again, IMO you should specify what OPs are valid to be able to > validate runtime-created OPs, but you shouldn't limit OP creation > kernel-wise. OK, I agree completely. Please ignore my last message. I didn't understand your previous comment in the context of runtime-created OPs. Sorry, -- Tim =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D Tim Bird Architecture Group Chair, CE Linux Forum Senior Staff Engineer, Sony Electronics =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D