From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bryan Huntsman Subject: Re: [linux-pm] Notes from the Boston Linux Power Management Mini-summit - August 9th, 2010 Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 18:09:17 -0700 Message-ID: <4C69E13D.3020809@codeaurora.org> References: <20100816144914.GB10354@sirena.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100816144914.GB10354@sirena.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Brown Cc: Len Brown , Linux Power Management List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Mark Brown wrote: > On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 01:36:33AM -0400, Len Brown wrote: > >> A gap: >> >> On OMAP, bus control is independent of CPU frequency control, >> so cpufreq and cpuidle don't quite fit the bill. >> >> Perhaps a "bus-idle" analogous to "cpu-idle" may be appropriate? > > FWIW this applies to a bunch of other embedded processors too - OMAP > isn't particularly unique here, though it's one of the furthest along in > terms of exploting this in mainline Linux. This capability would benefit MSM as well. We're looking into a soc-specific implementation using Pat Pannuto's "pseudo" platform bus extensions (discussed here http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/8/10/389). After we have something working, I would be curious to see if some common functionality could be extracted into a more generic mechanism. - Bryan -- Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.