Re: Alternative Concept

Ikhwan Lee
2007-03-14T02:30:02Z

Hi,

On 3/14/07, Mark Gross <mgross@linux.intel.com> 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 coexist?

> 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