Re: Alternative Concept

Dmitry Krivoschekov
2007-03-20T19:16:57Z

Hi Pavel,

Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
>>> when not needed. Based on this default behavior, there might be certain
>>> cases when a system-level manager can interact with them by making the
>> the system-level manager has to be arch-dependent in this case
>>> _localised_ power saving less aggressive, thus optimiising the global
>>> saves/performance. So if others than you are happy with just the
>>> distributed approach, they can avoid using the framework, while you can
>>> just put it on top and achive the same power saving that you would get
>>> in case 1
>> Ok, seems you are happy with current clock framework and advocating it
>> to be as is.
>> Are you against addition some features to it, such as enable/disable
>> "turn the unused clock off"
>
> What kind of debate is this?!
>
> Of course I and everyone else is against adding features without
> _really good_ explanation why this is needed. And no, you should not
> even ask unless you have patch ready,

If I understand you correctly, you are against big debates unless a
patch is ready,
I agree to that if someone tries to speculate on adding some feature
which is easily
can be shown as a patch, but before doing something more complex, say
new subsystem,
it is worth to make sure whether your intention makes sense at all, and
if it does
make sense, to discuss possible design details. I think it's better then
reviewing
of a patch set, then get an agreement the patches is ok and eventually
decide
the thing the patches are adding is unneeded.

If you feel people ask and discuss the same things again and again
perhaps it is time
to create some FAQ list.

the first question would be:

Q: Does Linux Power management take care about personal computers only?
A: ????

Thanks,
Dmitry

P.S. Are there special Etiquette notes for the list?