Re: community PM requirements/issues and PowerOP [Was: Re: So, what's the status on the recent patches here?]

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 02:50:04PM -0700, Matthew Locke wrote:
> 
> I would like to get a plan in place for acceptance with the power 
> management guys before we move this to lkml.

Sure, let's see something here that we all agree on.  You have yet to
achieve that, so you still have work to do.

> I propose that we submit the current set of PowerOP patches plus final
> few changes (from Greg's comments and a Documentation/ file).

Nothing is keeping you from sending these to the list now.  Please do
so.

> The patches do not affect anyone else.  The sysfs interface is
> optional.

If so, it will be interesting to see why the code is even needed, I
await the patches :)

> If necessary Eugeny and I will maintain userspace interface patches
> outside the mainline for now.

Why?  What good would the in-kernel patches be then if it can't be used
except for some external patches?  That's not acceptable.  And the user
interface has been tied to the other kernel code, so I think you need
them both, but am willing to be convinced otherwise.

> Will any of the power management maintainers ACK this plan and then
> ACK the patches?

Let's see the code please.

> If no one here is willing to ACK, then I don't see what will change by
> submitting to lkml.

Let's get this agreed on first, I feel that you still have some way to
go here.

Sending stuff to lkml is fine too, you should be doing that for such a
core change anyway.  I don't see why you can't do that at the same time,
it's just an extra email on the CC: line...

thanks,

greg k-h