From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Eugeny S. Mints" Subject: Re: Alternative Concept Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:43:08 +0300 Message-ID: <45F7D1BC.2000700@gmail.com> References: <44ECFF94.3030506@gmail.com> <20061007023620.GD30380@dominikbrodowski.de> <20070313110851.GB10702@elf.ucw.cz> <20070313203458.GA1213@linux.intel.com> <484380240703131930n5e64a8fu9b935b0b513f0731@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <484380240703131930n5e64a8fu9b935b0b513f0731@mail.gmail.com> 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: Ikhwan Lee Cc: Pavel Machek , Dominik Brodowski , pm list List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Ikhwan Lee wrote: > Hi, > = > On 3/14/07, Mark Gross wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 12:08:51PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: >>> Hi! >>> >>>> I believe this power parameter framework should solve many (if not >>>> all) of the issues raised by using operating points as the base >>>> abstraction and provide a common layer across architectures. Eugeny >>>> and I have the beginnings of an API proposal for this framework, but >>>> we wanted to get some high level feedback on the concepts so we can >>>> adjust the API if necessary. So, comments? >>> Looks better than powerop certainly. > = > I also think this power parameter framework is a lot easier to adopt. > PowerOp ideas can be built on top of this framework later. > = >>> Perhaps first step would be to convert cpufreq to this new framework? >> The first step is to get a parameter framework in upstream. > = > Would this involve replacing the clock framework, or are they going to co= exist? parameter framework would eventually replace clock framework. Separate cloc= k and = voltage frameworks lead to code and functionality duplication and do not ad= dress = such things as relationship between clocks and voltages, clock/voltage/powe= r = domains, etc needed for aggressive power management. Basically a good way of thinking about parameter framework is that paramete= r = framework would start from existed clock framework and gradually evolve by = addressing voltages, relationship between clocks and voltages, domains. = Eventually clock framework functionality would be a part of power parameter = framework. Thanks, Eugeny > = >> It will take some time for the applications of this proposed framework >> to materialize and drive the maturing of the implementation. These >> won't get written unless a framework is upstream. >> >> I don't know if having cpufreq plug into this framework will ever make a >> lot of sense. However; it would be simple to create a cpufreq driver >> that access the parameter layer for some selected platforms. (N800?) >> >> --mgross >> _______________________________________________ >> linux-pm mailing list >> linux-pm@lists.osdl.org >> https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm >> > = > It seems that this power parameter framework is more toward dynamic > (or runtime) power management of various devices on a platform. We > should make sure it does not break (and is not broken by) system > suspend/resume operations. > = > ikhwan > _______________________________________________ > linux-pm mailing list > linux-pm@lists.osdl.org > https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm > =