Re: So, what's the status on the recent patches here?

Pavel Machek
2006-09-04T09:06:45Z

On Sun 2006-09-03 17:40:27, Scott E. Preece wrote:
>
> | From: Pavel Machek<pavel@ucw.cz>
> |
> | On Sun 2006-09-03 17:12:22, Scott E. Preece wrote:
> | > | From: Pavel Machek<pavel@ucw.cz>

> | > Not speaking to either of the current code submissions, I would say that
> | > having a kernel interface for defining OPs and a kernel interface for
> | > setting the OP, was a reasonably clean interface.
> |
> | Well, me and Rafael disagree, and you do not really listen to
> | arguments. Now you can either fix the interface, or try to submit code
> | to lkml despite our NAKs. Go ahead and prepare for some flaming...
> ---
>
> I think I'm listening to arguments just as much as you guys are! We just
> disagree. What are your criteria for "a clean interface"? Why do you
> think that n separate set-parameter() interfaces, with no consistency
> relationship between them, are cleaner than one define-op() and one
> set-op() interface?

Because we already have cpufreq-set-parameter() interface and
enter-suspend-state() interface. We can't really get rid of them.

If you add set-op() replacing both cpufreq-set-parameter() and
enter-suspend-state(), we'll end up with two different interfaces for
each interface; that's considered "mess".
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html