From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/13] PM: Add option to disable /sys/power/state interface Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 00:44:04 +0100 Message-ID: <200902090044.04962.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <1233802226-23386-1-git-send-email-arve@android.com> <200902081450.46584.rjw@sisk.pl> <20090208210401.GE6369@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090208210401.GE6369@elf.ucw.cz> Content-Disposition: inline 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: Pavel Machek 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 On Sunday 08 February 2009, Pavel Machek wrote: > 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). Something like this, yes. Perhaps it's a good occasion to discuss that and reach an agreement on how to implement it. Thanks, Rafael