From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/13] PM: Add option to disable /sys/power/state interface Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 22:04:02 +0100 Message-ID: <20090208210401.GE6369@elf.ucw.cz> References: <1233802226-23386-1-git-send-email-arve@android.com> <200902072337.40046.rjw@sisk.pl> <20090208103355.GC14143@elf.ucw.cz> <200902081450.46584.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200902081450.46584.rjw@sisk.pl> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: ncunningham@crca.org.au, u.luckas@road.de, swetland@google.com, linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > > This is completely wrong, IMO. > > > > > > Removing an interface that has existed forever just because it happens to > > > be incompatible with your new shiny feature is not acceptable to me. > > > > Agreed. AFAICS this patch can be just dropped, or maybe kept specially > > for android if those few bytes matter to them. > > Just to make things crystal clear, in fact I don't like any patches in this > series. > > The wakelocks seem to be overdesigned to me and the "early suspend" thing Well, it is true that wakelocks could be single atomic_t ... but they would make them undebuggable. Ok, wakelock interface sucks. But I believe something like that is neccessary. (In fact, I invented something similar for sleepy linux patches). Early suspend would be better done by runtime suspend, agreed. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html