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 00:50:33 +0200 Message-ID: <20060911225033.GA13474@elf.ucw.cz> References: <450516E8.9010403@gmail.com> <20060911082025.GD1898@elf.ucw.cz> <450530BD.8090101@gmail.com> <20060911193637.GA11901@elf.ucw.cz> <20060911200636.GC11901@elf.ucw.cz> <20060911200936.GA12433@elf.ucw.cz> <6d5d95c88706be8a338f703579cd62b9@nomadgs.com> <20060911210634.GI11901@elf.ucw.cz> 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: 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: Matthew Locke Cc: Preece Scott-PREECE , pm list , Dominik Brodowski List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org > >>What does your going quiet mean? You have had some good feedback so I > >>much prefer we reach some sort of understanding. If your final > >>statement is that PowerOP is not needed and you are never going to = > >>like > >>it or ACK It, let us know. We can agree to disagree. > > > >You got the interfaces wrong. While I believe that something like > >powerop can indeed be useful for system-on-chip platforms, I do not > >think it should be exposed outside of kernel. > = > = > Ok. I don't think its wrong because its designed from understanding = > the requirements of pm software for embedded mobile devices. I >think = > the embedded folk all agree that the type of interface submitted is = > required. I don't understand why you think its wrong. Just to be = So you'll have to do lots of explaining. On lkml. > clear, your previous email made it very clear you don't like the = > userspace interface but this email says interfaces generically. = I meant user<->kernel interface. > assuming your only objection at this point is the userspace interface. = > We are more than willing to work this out. The current sysfs = > interface is surrounded by ifdefs and is optional. If there is no = > exposure to userspace, then testing/debuging will be more difficult. Having interface surrounded by #ifdefs is evil. You can test it separately, then just remove that code before submission. Or maybe move it to debugfs. > Greg, Pavel, Dominik, Dave J and Dave B, > = > I would like to get a plan in place for acceptance with the power = > management guys before we move this to lkml. = Documentation/SubmittingPatches says: #5) Select your CC (e-mail carbon copy) list. # #Unless you have a reason NOT to do so, CC #linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org. and sorry, but I insist on using proper procedure here. And no, "we are afraid of being flamed" is not good enough reason not to. Pavel -- = (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blo= g.html