[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe : Re : [HELP] Power management for embedded system
Russell King wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 09:37:39AM +0000, moreau francis wrote:
>> Russell King wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 08:44:25AM +0000, moreau francis wrote:
>>>> Mips one seems to be a copy and paste of arm one and both of them
>>>> have removed all APM bios stuff orginally part of i386 implementation.
>>> The BIOS stuff makes no sense on ARM - there isn't a BIOS to do anything
>>> with.
>> I haven't said that it has been widely/wrongly removed...
> ROTFL! No, you were stating that the APM bios stuff was removed, and
> I gave the reason for it. Why are you now objecting to my explaination?

Take it easy ! I'm not objecting your explanation. Your explanation, which
was not asked, sounded to me like I said something wrong/bad on this
amputation. I have prefered to make things clear, no more.

>>>> It doesn't seem that APM is something really stable and finished.
>>> It's complete. It's purpose is to provide the interface to userland so
>>> that programs know about suspend/resume events, and can initiate suspends.
>>> Eg, the X server.
>> Is there something specific to ARM in this implementation ? I don't think
>> so and it's surely the reason why MIPS did copy it with almost no changes.
> MIPS copied it because presumably it was useful for them.

Actually my point is that it could be usefull for _all_ embedded systems,
whatever the arches it comes from, couldn't it ?

>> I understand that ARM implementation has been the first one but maybe now

So does it make sense to you to have

|-- apm_userland_interface_emulation_and_not_a_power_management_infrastructure.c
|-- idle.c
|-- core.c

|- apm_specific_to_arm_which_is_needed_by_generic_driver.c
| ...

for example ?

>> why not making it the common power management for embedded system that
>> could be used by all arches which need it ?
> It could well become a common interface. But it is NOT power management
> infrastructure. It is merely a _userland_ interface. Nothing more. It
> does not do anything other than that.

apm_queue_event() (and kapmd) doens't seem something usefull for user space.
It seems to be designed to be used by the kernel no ?

>> BTW, why has apm_cpu_idle() logic been removed from ARM implementation ?
> This APM is just a userland interface. It has nothing to do with actual
> power management. CPU idling is handled entirely differently on ARM.

Could you point out where it is handled ?

>>> The power management really comes from the Linux drivers themselves,
>>> which are written to peripherals off when they're not in use. The other
>>> power saving comes from things like cpufreq - again, nothing to do with
>>> the magical "APM" or "ACPI" terms.
>> BTW why is it still called "APM" on ARM ?
> That's what the userland interface is called on x86. We could've called it
> apm_userland_interface_emulation_and_not_a_power_management_infrastructure.c
> but although that clearly states what it is, it would've been far too long
> a name. 8)

Sure, but something that can reflect that it's a userland interface emulation
implementation would have been usefull. APM, despite it's already used by APM
BIOS terminology, is rather a name for a complete subsystem.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-08-24 13:01    [W:0.087 / U:2.768 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site