| 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: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 23:45:17 +0200 From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> To: Matthew Locke <matt@...adgs.com> Cc: linux-pm@...ts.osdl.org, "Scott E. Preece" <preece@...orola.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH] PowerOP, PowerOP Core, 1/2 Hi! > >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. > > The 256 is only a temporary implementation limitation. Really? 256 CPUs mean 2^256 states. How do you handle that without introducing vectors? > >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. > > PowerOP does *not* cover devices. It covers system level parameters > such clocks, buses, voltages. I've seen "usb enabled" in one of examples.. and that sure seems like device to me. 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