+1
-- Garrett
Li, Aubrey wrote:
> Bill.Holler wrote:
>
>
>> On 11/05/08 17:11, Eric Saxe wrote:
>>
>>> Randy Fishel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I would like to propose the following project to be sponsored by the
>>>> Power Management Community Group:
>>>>
>>>> Power Management Usability Interfaces
>>>>
>>>> Controlling and managing Power Management facilities currently is a
>>>> small collection of diverse tools that often manipulate objects
>>>> directly, or even require that a user edit a configuration file.
>>>> And many don't allow the user to identify or understand in-kernel
>>>> values without entering a debugger. As some tools need to duplicate
>>>> pathways, maintenance becomes a problem as all the tools need to be
>>>> identified and updated.
>>>>
>>>> Providing a well defined set of interfaces help to aleviate
>>>> confusion, and promote easy to use and easy to create tools.
>>>> Maintenence and security are also often confined to the element
>>>> that exhibits the problem. Some of this work may just result in
>>>> improved documentation, but there will also be a need for new and
>>>> updated tools and interfaces.
>>>>
>>>> I see this work falling into four distinct areas:
>>>>
>>>> A Power Management specific library (i.e. libpower)
>>>> Provides a committed set of programatic API's that
>>>> can be consumed by other tools, utilities, daemons, and GUI's
>>>>
>>>> Commands and Utilities
>>>> Predominantly updated and new CLI's, but could also be GUI's
>>>> that are expected to directly be us
>>>>
>>>> SMF facilities
>>>> New and improved services that can act standalone, or be
>>>> used as a repository for running state.
>>>>
>>>> Debug/Observability
>>>> Some of this might land in CLI, but could well include mdb
>>>> and dtrace enhancements (i.e. dtrace pm provider).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Initially I expect this work to focus in libpower, but there is the
>>>> likelyhood of effort in the other areas, as well as short-term
>>>> binary relief. This project will not necessarily limit itself to
>>>> the above areas, and could easily expand as the need presents
>>>> itself.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Comments? Votes?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Yes, +1.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Eric
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> pm-discuss mailing list
>>> pm-discuss at opensolaris.org
>>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-discuss
>>>
>>>
>> +1.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>
> +1.
>
> Currently Powertop is using an ugly method to enable cpupm.
> And we have the same problem to enable deep cstate.
> I believe this issue can be fixed if we have libpower.
>
> Thanks,
> -Aubrey
> _______________________________________________
> pm-discuss mailing list
> pm-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pm-discuss
>
