+1. Low level details such as ordering of hardware re-initialization will need to evolve as future hardware implementations are designed.
Bill On 02/13/09 11:30, Raj, Ashok wrote: > Guess I can't +1 our own case :-) > > The doc is updated to incorporate the lastest feedback AFAICT based on my > last conversation with Gerry. > > Regarding this being under tesla or PM, the first user of this interface > would be FIPE, that's why we wanted to be under tesla, but the notification > itself if sort of generic so it really doesn't matter from our perspective as > long as there is some place to exist. > > We agree this will be evolving based on implementation and architecture as it > evolves. > > Thanks Randy for shepherding this though. I have been under the hood to debug > some weird things and just managed to get out of the lab. > > Thanks a ton > Cheers, > ashok > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: tesla-dev-bounces at opensolaris.org [mailto:tesla-dev-bounces at >> opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Eric >> Saxe >> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 11:09 AM >> To: Randy Fishel >> Cc: tesla-dev at opensolaris.org >> Subject: Re: [tesla-dev] CPU idle notification interface (FIPE) >> >> Randy Fishel wrote: >> >>> Hi All- >>> >>> There is some (legitimate) pressure to get this integrated into the >>> core ASAP, and as such needs to have an ARC review. So to get this >>> moving, I need three things from the poject alias (some specific to >>> individuals): >>> >>> First (a good thing for Ashok), is the spec on the project pages >>> current? >>> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/tesla/Work/MemPM/onepager_v3.txt >>> If not, point me and this list to the current spec? >>> >>> >> This looks current to me. Perhaps Gerry can confirm he had incorporated >> all the comments from before into this...but it looks that way to me. >> >>> Second, I need sufficient +1's from the leaders that this project is >>> desired. >>> >>> >> +1 from me. One question I have is whether this really should be under >> Tesla (which i'm ok with), or whether it should be under the PM >> community now that we have one. If this belongs as its own project, then >> the PM community CCs need to +1 this. My +1 stands either way. >> >> >>> Third, I need sufficient +1's from the leaders that the above spec >>> is what you are agreeing to. >>> >>> >> +1, with the observation that the nitty gritty details might change with >> the implementation. >> >> Thanks, >> -Eric >> _______________________________________________ >> tesla-dev mailing list >> tesla-dev at opensolaris.org >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/tesla-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > tesla-dev mailing list > tesla-dev at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/tesla-dev >
