From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 6) Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 14:36:57 -0700 Message-ID: <20100513213656.GL3428@atomide.com> References: <1272667021-21312-1-git-send-email-arve@android.com> <201005132311.26293.rjw@sisk.pl> <1273785399.19100.98.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com> <201005132327.16163.rjw@sisk.pl> <1273786409.19100.104.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1273786409.19100.104.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Walker Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Matthew Garrett , Brian Swetland , Paul Walmsley , Arve =?utf-8?B?SGrDuG5uZXbDpWc=?= , 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 , =?utf-8?Q?Beno=C3=AEt?= Cousson , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, Vitaly Wool , Mark Brown , Liam Girdwood , Greg KH List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org * 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. Regards, Tony