Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750921AbWHXK5p (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Aug 2006 06:57:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751095AbWHXK5p (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Aug 2006 06:57:45 -0400 Received: from web25811.mail.ukl.yahoo.com ([217.146.176.244]:44682 "HELO web25811.mail.ukl.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750921AbWHXK5o (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Aug 2006 06:57:44 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.fr; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=jtoK78HbbGK0AtitQUQhzh34WRQgn2JGHGPZwZb2LtHSkh6bSWl6Uzo7ItM98+I8RDiNh4voqdfJiECa8zSM2DTUsgnraU3wudyxhuRn/mDA5OtodPkogJGxbt5QkE/laC/pY8nWlKZv96zkCKmjqDFMIBn2fq2pWlbfrtplUOg= ; Message-ID: <20060824105743.60250.qmail@web25811.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 10:57:43 +0000 (GMT) From: moreau francis Reply-To: moreau francis Subject: Re : Re : [HELP] Power management for embedded system To: Russell King Cc: linux-pm@lists.osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20060824101125.GA21439@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3530 Lines: 92 Russell King wrote: > On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 09:37:39AM +0000, moreau francis wrote: >> Russell King wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 08:44:25AM +0000, moreau francis wrote: >>>> Mips one seems to be a copy and paste of arm one and both of them >>>> have removed all APM bios stuff orginally part of i386 implementation. >>> The BIOS stuff makes no sense on ARM - there isn't a BIOS to do anything >>> with. >> I haven't said that it has been widely/wrongly removed... > > ROTFL! No, you were stating that the APM bios stuff was removed, and > I gave the reason for it. Why are you now objecting to my explaination? > Take it easy ! I'm not objecting your explanation. Your explanation, which was not asked, sounded to me like I said something wrong/bad on this amputation. I have prefered to make things clear, no more. >>>> It doesn't seem that APM is something really stable and finished. >>> It's complete. It's purpose is to provide the interface to userland so >>> that programs know about suspend/resume events, and can initiate suspends. >>> Eg, the X server. >>> >> Is there something specific to ARM in this implementation ? I don't think >> so and it's surely the reason why MIPS did copy it with almost no changes. > > MIPS copied it because presumably it was useful for them. > Actually my point is that it could be usefull for _all_ embedded systems, whatever the arches it comes from, couldn't it ? >> I understand that ARM implementation has been the first one but maybe now So does it make sense to you to have linux/driver/apm |-- apm_userland_interface_emulation_and_not_a_power_management_infrastructure.c |-- idle.c |-- core.c linux/arch/arm/kernel/ |- apm_specific_to_arm_which_is_needed_by_generic_driver.c | ... for example ? >> why not making it the common power management for embedded system that >> could be used by all arches which need it ? > > It could well become a common interface. But it is NOT power management > infrastructure. It is merely a _userland_ interface. Nothing more. It > does not do anything other than that. > apm_queue_event() (and kapmd) doens't seem something usefull for user space. It seems to be designed to be used by the kernel no ? >> BTW, why has apm_cpu_idle() logic been removed from ARM implementation ? > > This APM is just a userland interface. It has nothing to do with actual > power management. CPU idling is handled entirely differently on ARM. > Could you point out where it is handled ? >>> The power management really comes from the Linux drivers themselves, >>> which are written to peripherals off when they're not in use. The other >>> power saving comes from things like cpufreq - again, nothing to do with >>> the magical "APM" or "ACPI" terms. >> BTW why is it still called "APM" on ARM ? > > That's what the userland interface is called on x86. We could've called it > apm_userland_interface_emulation_and_not_a_power_management_infrastructure.c > but although that clearly states what it is, it would've been far too long > a name. 8) > Sure, but something that can reflect that it's a userland interface emulation implementation would have been usefull. APM, despite it's already used by APM BIOS terminology, is rather a name for a complete subsystem. Francis - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/