Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751246AbWISHqm (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Sep 2006 03:46:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751265AbWISHqm (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Sep 2006 03:46:42 -0400 Received: from mgw-ext11.nokia.com ([131.228.20.170]:56131 "EHLO mgw-ext11.nokia.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751246AbWISHql (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Sep 2006 03:46:41 -0400 Subject: Re: [linux-pm] PowerOP vs OPpoint From: Amit Kucheria To: ext Jon Loeliger Cc: Matthew Locke , pm list , kernel list In-Reply-To: <1158610046.6962.186.camel@cashmere.sps.mot.com> References: <1158610046.6962.186.camel@cashmere.sps.mot.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Nokia Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 10:44:05 +0300 Message-Id: <1158651846.14353.8.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Sep 2006 07:46:31.0687 (UTC) FILETIME=[B9127970:01C6DBBF] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2223 Lines: 53 On Mon, 2006-09-18 at 15:07 -0500, ext Jon Loeliger wrote: > On Thu, 2006-09-14 at 04:22, Matthew Locke wrote: > > Unfortunately, there are two efforts underway that makes this confusing > > and I think require a bit more than the short summary requested. A one > > paragraph summary can't address the why and how. This email briefly > > describes the why and the differences. > > > > There are two main reasons for both these efforts: > > - existing power management interfaces do not enable the power > > management features on the latest SOC's used in embedded mobile > > devices > > - existing power management interfaces do not provide the API necessary > > to build power managers (userspace and/or kernel space) that optimize > > power consumption to level required by embedded mobile devices > > So does it make sense to re-unify these two patch-sets > into one common, more general patch-set first? Might > it make sense to do so in small, incremental steps that > everyone can agree on as we go along? That has been the idea. Maybe if you have better way to 'communicate' with David Singleton (oppoint) since he refuses to be drawn into the merge discussions. > For example, maybe the very first thing to do is define > some notion of general "operating point" that is a super-set > of the cpufreq definition. If we can define that structure > maybe we can progress towards introducing and using it. Yes, it is a good first step. Please comment on the PowerOP patches to see if there is something in the OP notion that is missing in your opinion. > Totally side-step the kernel-user level stuff for a bit... > Totally side-step the suspend/resume issues for a bit... I believe the PowerOP patches from Eugeny and Matt do not touch suspend-resume issues and make the kernel-userspace interface to define OP as an optional patch. Oppoing patches on the other hand touch those issues. Regards, Amit -- Amit Kucheria Nokia - 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/