From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964848AbVHIQIM (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2005 12:08:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964849AbVHIQIM (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2005 12:08:12 -0400 Received: from mail-red.bigfish.com ([216.148.222.61]:41321 "EHLO mail24-red-R.bigfish.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964848AbVHIQIK (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2005 12:08:10 -0400 X-BigFish: V Message-ID: <42F8D4C5.2090800@am.sony.com> Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 09:07:33 -0700 From: Geoff Levand User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6-1.1.fc4 (X11/20050720) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Todd Poynor CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@lists.osdl.org, cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk Subject: Re: [linux-pm] PowerOP 1/3: PowerOP core References: <20050809025157.GB25064@slurryseal.ddns.mvista.com> In-Reply-To: <20050809025157.GB25064@slurryseal.ddns.mvista.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Todd Poynor wrote: ... > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.12.orig/include/linux/powerop.h 1970-01-01 > 00:00:00.000000000 +0000 > +++ linux-2.6.12/include/linux/powerop.h 2005-08-03 > 01:10:55.000000000 +0000 > @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ > +/* > + * PowerOP core definitions > + * > + * Author: Todd Poynor > + * > + * 2005 (c) MontaVista Software, Inc. This file is licensed under > + * the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2. This program > + * is licensed "as is" without any warranty of any kind, whether > express > + * or implied. > + */ > + > +#ifndef __POWEROP_H__ > +#define __POWEROP_H__ > + > +#include > +#include > + > +struct powerop_point { > + int param[POWEROP_DRIVER_MAX_PARAMS]; > +}; I'm wondering if anything could be gained by having the whole struct powerop_point defined in asm/powerop.h, and treat it as an opaque structure at this level. That way, things other than just ints could be passed between the policy manager and the backend, although I guess that breaks the beauty of the simplicity and would complicate the sys-fs interface, etc. I'm interested to hear your comments. Another point is that a policy manager would need to poll the system and/or get events and then act. Your powerop work here only provides a (one way) piece of the final action. Any comments regarding a more general interface? -Geoff