Re: Alternative Concept [Was: Re: [RFC] CPUFreq PowerOP integration, Intro 0/3]

Mark Gross
2006-10-16T21:56:06Z

On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 06:02:03PM +0200, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 08:38:21AM -0700, Mark Gross wrote:
> > > > I think that this might be much easier to implement than your PowerOP /
> > > > operating points / PM core / PowerOP - cpufreq interaction patches. As a
> > > > matter of fact, some parts of your operating points table infrastructure
> > > > may be usable for the concept outlined above. So, what do you think? What
> > > > does everyone else involved think about this alternative approach?
> > >
> > > Looks okay to me. Unlike powerop design, this actually works for
> > > everyone.
> >
> > Pavel, if you would pay attention better you would notice that at the
> > underneath of what Dominic is talking about is a concept of *more knobs*
> > for controlling platform power states. This is what PowerOP is trying
> > to bring to the table.
>
> Oh no. PowerOP does it top->bottom; I try to do it bototm->top. That's the
> difference, and it is a _fundamental_ difference. Yes, both will lead to a
> concept of "operating points" on systems which may need it. But still the
> way you get there (which is important if you want to keep it flexible, and
> you do want to keep it flexible to allow for cpufreq) is different.

I'll take a closer look at both. It really looks to me that folks are in
violent agreement more than anything else. I also prefer a bottom->top
approach.

--mgross

>
> > PowerOP is not a policy engine like what Dominic is talking about. And
> > what Dominic is talking about will need to build on something that will
> > end up looking so much like power op that it wont be funny.
>
> This I dare to doubt.
>
> Thanks,
> Dominik