Randy Fishel wrote:
> I am going to let the project team respond to the detail questions,
> but I will respond to questions reguarding the "bigger picture".
>
>
>> This seems specific to "idle" notification. Would it be useful to have
>> something that dealt with other kinds of CPU state transitions as well?
>> (C-states, for example?)
>>
>> -- Garrett
>>
>
>
> Predominantly, the issue to external devices is only idle, so that
> they can take other actions to reduce power. Part of the assumption
> here is that idle can absorb the extra latency required by the
> callback and will reduce the impact to performance. Considering that
> C/T/P-states will likely occur very frequently, having additional
> notifications could circumvent the value of those state transitions.
>
> Evolution of PAD (Power Aware Dispatcher) may change some of these
> considerations, but for now this is the most we want to open the door.
>
>
Fair enough. But, IMO, all the more reason to avoid hard coding a
structure and instead use property name/value pairs if at all possible.
It sounds like there is potential for significant evolution here in the
future.
-- Garrett
> ---- Randy
>
