linux-kernel - Re: Power Management framework proposal

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1185313138.5439.285.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jul 2007 07:38:58 +1000
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	david@...g.hm
Cc:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-pm <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Power Management framework proposal

On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 13:14 -0700, david@...g.hm wrote:
> > I think we need a set of constraints that trickle down the power
> tree
> > and limit what a given driver can do locally.
> 
> what sort of contraints are you thinking of?

A parent power state defines what states children can be in. For
example. A way to express those dependencies would be nice. Or
alternatiely, the power state of all the children defines the power
state a parent can go in automatically.

Ben.

-
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/