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

Mark Gross
2006-09-12T00:00:00Z

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