From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Gross Subject: Re: community PM requirements/issues and PowerOP [Was: Re: So, what's the status on the recent patches here?] Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:00:00 -0700 Message-ID: <20060912000000.GB14234@linux.intel.com> References: <450516E8.9010403@gmail.com> <20060911082025.GD1898@elf.ucw.cz> <20060911215303.GA12176@linux.intel.com> <20060911224313.GA13536@elf.ucw.cz> Reply-To: mgross@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: <20060911224313.GA13536@elf.ucw.cz> 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: Pavel Machek Cc: pm list , scott.preece@motorola.com List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 12:43:13AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > 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. > = I don't think providing Documentation on whatever interface will be a problem. --mgross