Re: So, what's the status on the recent patches here?

[Mark Gross <mgross@linux.intel.com>]

On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 07:39:57PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Mon 2006-08-28 09:40:38, Mark Gross wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 03:46:53PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > On Sat 2006-08-26 17:30:40, Vitaly Wool wrote:
> > > > On 8/26/06, Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz> wrote:
> > > Because 8388608 policies is clearly not reasonable, powerop can not
> > > help here, and something better should be developed... like power
> > > domains someone proposed here.
> > > 
> > > (Or to say it in another words, powerop forces one big power domain,
> > > which is bad model for notebook-style machine).
> > 
> > I doubt notebook-style machines will ever us power op in any
> > significant way.  HPC and embedded will be the first users.
> 
> I agree here... power op look useless for notebooks. But I doubt power
> op authors would agree...

Concluding that it will be useless for notebooks may be premature.

I see powerop as the bottom of an future PM stack.  As the upper layers
take shape who knows what platforms will use it?

> 
> > Power domains will likely build on top power op.
> > 
> > Power domains adds complexities themselves. Dealing with
> > dependencies and constraints between domains will be a challenge.
> 
> Once we have power domains in/solved... do we still need power op? I
> thought power op could be useful for solving constrains _inside_ one
> domain, but...

Power domains and the components within them will likely be accessed as
operating points.  I think we need to build the power domain
abstractions on top of operating points.  This is why I want to see
support for multiple power_op_driver instances or a story for how
operating points are added to a running system or even platform to
enable and deal with domains.

--mgross