Re: [linux-pm] PowerOP 1/3: PowerOP core

[Geoff Levand]

Todd Poynor wrote:
...
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.12.orig/include/linux/powerop.h	1970-01-01
> 00:00:00.000000000 +0000
> +++ linux-2.6.12/include/linux/powerop.h	2005-08-03
> 01:10:55.000000000 +0000
> @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
> +/*
> + * PowerOP core definitions
> + *
> + * Author: Todd Poynor <tpoynor@xxxxxxxxxx>
> + *
> + * 2005 (c) MontaVista Software, Inc. This file is licensed under
> + * the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2. This program
> + * is licensed "as is" without any warranty of any kind, whether
> express
> + * or implied.
> + */
> +
> +#ifndef __POWEROP_H__
> +#define __POWEROP_H__
> +
> +#include <linux/kobject.h>
> +#include <asm/powerop.h>
> +
> +struct powerop_point {
> +	int param[POWEROP_DRIVER_MAX_PARAMS];
> +};

I'm wondering if anything could be gained by having the whole 
struct powerop_point defined in asm/powerop.h, and treat it as an 
opaque structure at this level.  That way, things other than just 
ints could be passed between the policy manager and the backend, 
although I guess that breaks the beauty of the simplicity and would 
complicate the sys-fs interface, etc.  I'm interested to hear your 
comments.

Another point is that a policy manager would need to poll the system 
and/or get events and then act.  Your powerop work here only provides 
a (one way) piece of the final action.  Any comments regarding a more 
general interface?

-Geoff


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/