| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 13:18:05 +0200 From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> To: "Scott E. Preece" <preece@...orola.com> Cc: eugeny.mints@...il.com, linux-pm@...ts.osdl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH] PowerOP, PowerOP Core, 1/2 Hi! > Note that I don't think PowerOp would cover all devices. In fact, I > think most devices would remain autonomous or controlled as part of > specific subsystems. The only things that PowerOp would bundle together > would be things that aren't independent (and may not even be visible as > "devices" in the usual Linux sense), but that have to be managed > together in changing frequency/voltage. At least, that's the way I > imagined it would work. Well, two objections to that a) current powerop code does not handle 256 CPU machine, because that would need 256 independend bundles, and powerop has hardcoded "only one bundle" rule. b) having some devices controlled by powerop and some by specific subsystem is indeed ugly. I'd hope powerop would cover all the devices. (Or maybe cover _no_ devices). Userland should not need to know if touchscreen is part of SoC or if it happens to be independend on given machine. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists