public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@nokia.com>
To: "ext linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org" 
	<linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-pm <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] Power Management framework proposal
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 10:57:02 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1185091022.19678.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707212339550.6350@asgard.lang.hm>

Hi,
On Sat, 2007-07-21 at 23:49 -0700, ext
linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org wrote:
> I'm deliberatly breaking the threading on this so that people who have 
> tuned out the hibernation thread can take a look at this.
> 
> below is the proposal that I made at the bottom of one of the posts on the 
> hibernation thread.

I have the impression that you are trying to describe a mix of the clock
and latency frameworks.

Could you elaborate on how your proposal is incompatible with enhancing
the clock framework? 

It looks like you are proposing a brand new shiny thing that frankly I
would be happy to leave alone, unless it is crystal clear that the clock
fw cannot be improved.

The clocfk fw is used for OMAP and other architectures (including SH,
iirc) and so far it has provided very good support for our power
management needs (Nokia 770 and N800).

Currently we are working on DVFS for OMAP2 (see slides presented at the
linux-pm summit for OLS 2007 http://tinyurl.com/28tact ) and even if the
current prototype is not actively involving the clock fw, our final goal
is to make it capable of supporting atomic transactions for changing the
core parameters.

OMAP3 will require suspend to ram implementation where the content of
system memory is retained, while parts or all the SoC are switched off.
The plan is still to have a clock fw based implementation (plus
interaction with the power rails, of course).

I think these are good examples of the non-ACPI systems you are
mentioning.

To make any proposal that has some chance of being accepted, you have to
compare it against the existing solution, explaining:

-what it is bringing in terms of new functionalities
-how it is different
-why the current implementation cannot simply be enhanced

You can refer to the linux-pm archives for examples of failed attempts
over the last year or so, just search for "framework" in the subject.

-- 
Cheers, Igor

Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@nokia.com>
(Nokia Multimedia - CP - OSSO / Helsinki, Finland)

  reply	other threads:[~2007-07-22  7:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-07-22  6:49 Power Management framework proposal david
2007-07-22  7:57 ` Igor Stoppa [this message]
2007-07-22  8:58   ` [linux-pm] " david
2007-07-22 12:05     ` Igor Stoppa
2007-07-22 21:21       ` david
2007-07-22 23:09         ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-07-23  2:45           ` david
2007-07-23  3:50             ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-07-23  4:04               ` david
2007-07-23  4:19                 ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-07-23  5:25                   ` david
2007-07-23 14:12                     ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-07-23 18:19                       ` david
2007-07-23  8:56                   ` Ondrej Zajicek
2007-07-23 17:33                     ` david
2007-07-27 12:04                     ` Pavel Machek
2007-07-23 10:48         ` Igor Stoppa
2007-07-23 18:14           ` david
2007-07-24  8:43             ` Jerome Glisse
2007-07-24 14:18               ` Igor Stoppa
2007-07-24 20:13                 ` david
2007-07-24 20:06               ` david
2007-07-24 23:14                 ` Jerome Glisse
2007-07-25  0:40                   ` david
2007-07-25 12:49                     ` Jerome Glisse
2007-07-29 21:56                       ` david
2007-07-22 17:26 ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-07-22 18:56   ` david
2007-07-22 22:27     ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-07-23  3:51       ` david
2007-07-23  4:00         ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-07-23  4:09           ` david
2007-07-27 11:46             ` Pavel Machek
2007-07-29 22:00               ` david
2007-07-30  1:05                 ` Matthew Garrett
2007-07-23 22:23   ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2007-07-24 20:14     ` david
2007-07-24 21:38       ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2007-07-24 23:02         ` david
2007-07-24 23:47           ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1185091022.19678.28.camel@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=igor.stoppa@nokia.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox