From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 6) Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 23:54:24 +0200 Message-ID: <201005132354.24259.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <1272667021-21312-1-git-send-email-arve@android.com> <1273786409.19100.104.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com> <20100513213656.GL3428@atomide.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:54616 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754516Ab0EMVxY (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 May 2010 17:53:24 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100513213656.GL3428@atomide.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Tony Lindgren Cc: Daniel Walker , 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 , 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 , Greg KH On Thursday 13 May 2010, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Daniel Walker [100513 14:28]: > > On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 23:27 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > Because someone would have to remove suspend blockers (or rather wakelocks) > > > from the drivers, test that they work correctly without suspend blockers and > > > submit the modified versions. Going forward, every party responsible for such > > > a driver would have to maintain an out-of-tree version with suspend blockers > > > (or wakelocks) anyway, so the incentive to do that is zero. > > > > They should work without wakelock since wakelock are optional .. I mean > > there's nothing in suspend blockers I've seen that indicates it's > > required for some drivers to work. So it's just a matter of patching out > > the wakelocks, with no need to re-test anything. > > > > You get the driver mainlined, then maintain a small patch to add > > wakelocks. Not hard at all , with lots of incentive to do so since you > > don't have to maintain such a large block of code out of tree. > > > > > Practically, as long as the opportunistic suspend is out of tree, there will be > > > a _growing_ number of out-of-tree drivers out there, which is not acceptable > > > in the long run. > > > > I don't see why your saying that. These driver should work with out all > > of this, which means they can get mainlined right now. > > I agree with Daniel here. We should keep merging the drivers separate > from the suspend blocks issues. Unfortunately, that's completely unrealistic. Please refer to the Greg's reply for details. Rafael