Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:05:22 +0100 | From | Dominik Brodowski <> | Subject | Re: add lowpower_idle sysctl |
| |
On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 10:40:31PM -0500, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote: > On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > "Kenneth Chen" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Logically it means a sysctl entry in /proc/sys/kernel. > > > > Yes, but the *meanings* of the different values of that sysctl need > > > > to be defined, and documented. If lowpower_idle=42 has a totally > > > > different meaning on different architectures then that's unfortunate > > > > but understandable. But we should at least enumerate the different > > > > values and try to get different architectures to honour `42' in the > > > > same way. > > > > > > Writing to sysctl should be a bool, reading the value can be number of > > > module currently disabled low power idle. I think the original intent > > > is to use ref count for enabling/disabling. (granted, we copied the > > > code from other arch).
I assume ia64 does idling using the ACPI processor.c driver? If so, couldn't writing to /proc/acpi/processor/./power be an option?
> > OK, so why not give us: > > > > #define IDLE_HALT 0 > > #define IDLE_POLL 1 > > #define IDLE_SUPER_LOW_POWER_HALT 2 > > > > and so forth (are there any others?). > > > > Set some system-wide integer via a sysctl and let the particular > > architecture decide how best to implement the currently-selected idle mode? > > I'm wondering whether the setting of these magic numbers can't be done > using cpufreq infrastructure.
I doubt it -- there's no ia64 cpufreq driver anyway, and cpufreq is about frequency scaling and (sometimes) throttling, but not "idling". And "idling" is a too different implementation anyways.
Dominik [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |