From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: community PM requirements/issues and PowerOP [Was: Re: So, what's the status on the recent patches here?] Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 00:43:13 +0200 Message-ID: <20060911224313.GA13536@elf.ucw.cz> References: <450516E8.9010403@gmail.com> <20060911082025.GD1898@elf.ucw.cz> <20060911215303.GA12176@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060911215303.GA12176@linux.intel.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org To: Mark Gross Cc: pm list , scott.preece@motorola.com List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Mon 2006-09-11 14:53:03, Mark Gross wrote: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 10:20:25AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Lets get kernel<->user interface right, first. You'll need to create > > Documentation/ entries for your interfaces, eventually, so lets do > > that, first, and then talk about code. Oh and it would be nice to cc > > lkml on that document, too. New kernel<->user interface is not > > decision taken lightly. > = > Is this just trying delay power op getting into the kernel? We are > building up / evolving a PM stack from bottom up and you want to the > high level interface to be well defined and agreed upon first? As long as you do not introduce _any_ user<->kernel interfaces within patch series, going without Documentation is okay. But IIRC that was not the case. -- = (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blo= g.html