Re: Alternative Concept

["Eugeny S. Mints" <eugeny.mints@gmail.com>]

Amit Kucheria wrote:
> On 3/15/07, Ikhwan Lee <dlrghks@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 3/15/07, David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> So you think that platforms which don't have such interdependencies
>>> should incur costs and complexity to address problems they don't have.
>>> Why?
>> Not every platform implements the clock interface. I think same can be
>> done with the proposed power parameter framework. The basic codes
>> defining the power parameter interface need not be costly and complex.
> 
> Exactly! Maybe once we get to the stage of interface discussion, Matt
> and Eugeny could provide a roadmap on the evolution of the PM
> framework. Personally, I don't see clock framework disappearing
> overnight for platforms that do use it.

dissolving might be a better wording in the sense that for a platform which 
would not gain from adding any node and arc to the clock nodes and arcs already 
exited in the current clock tree for the platform would stick with exactly the 
same tree(graph) without incurring any additional costs and complexity.

Eugeny

> 
> /Amit
> --
> Amit Kucheria, Nokia
> _______________________________________________
> linux-pm mailing list
> linux-pm@lists.osdl.org
> https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
>