[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C69E13D.3020809@codeaurora.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 18:09:17 -0700
From: Bryan Huntsman <bryanh@...eaurora.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
CC: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Linux Power Management List <linux-pm@...ts.osdl.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] Notes from the Boston Linux Power Management Mini-summit
- August 9th, 2010
Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 01:36:33AM -0400, Len Brown wrote:
>
>> A gap:
>>
>> On OMAP, bus control is independent of CPU frequency control,
>> so cpufreq and cpuidle don't quite fit the bill.
>>
>> Perhaps a "bus-idle" analogous to "cpu-idle" may be appropriate?
>
> FWIW this applies to a bunch of other embedded processors too - OMAP
> isn't particularly unique here, though it's one of the furthest along in
> terms of exploting this in mainline Linux.
This capability would benefit MSM as well. We're looking into a
soc-specific implementation using Pat Pannuto's "pseudo" platform bus
extensions (discussed here http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/8/10/389). After
we have something working, I would be curious to see if some common
functionality could be extracted into a more generic mechanism.
- Bryan
--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
--
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