From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Walker Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 6) Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 14:16:39 -0700 Message-ID: <1273785399.19100.98.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com> References: <1272667021-21312-1-git-send-email-arve@android.com> <1273779394.19100.47.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com> <20100513194820.GA19722@srcf.ucam.org> <201005132311.26293.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201005132311.26293.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Matthew Garrett , Brian Swetland , Paul Walmsley , Arve =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hj=F8nnev=E5g?= , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tejun Heo , Oleg Nesterov , Tony Lindgren , Kevin Hilman , Alan Stern , magnus.damm@gmail.com, Theodore Ts'o , mark gross , Arjan van de Ven , Geoff Smith , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Beno=EEt?= Cousson , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, Vitaly Wool , Mark Brown , Liam Girdwood List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 23:11 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday 13 May 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 12:36:34PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > > > On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 20:11 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > > See feature-removal-schedule.txt. So far we have no indication that it's > > > > going to be replaced, because nobody has actually suggested a working > > > > way to do this better. If we had a concrete implementation proposal for > > > > that then we'd be in a pretty different position right now. > > > > > > Ok, feature-removal-schedule.txt applies to everything tho. What your > > > saying is that if this interface only last a short time it might take 6 > > > months, if it last for a long time it would take longer. There's no easy > > > way to know that Google is the only user after some amount of time > > > passes. > > > > If the interface is there for a long time, it's because we haven't come > > up with anything better. And if we haven't come up with anything better, > > the interface deserves to be there. > > Moreover, the interface is already in use out-of-tree and that usage is > actually _growing_, so we have a growing number of out-of-tree drivers that > aren't megrgeable for this very reason. Why can't we merge the drivers? Drivers are just drivers, they don't need this to get merged. (They need it to work with Android) Daniel