From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/13] PM: Add wake lock api. Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 23:22:30 +0100 Message-ID: <200902122322.30864.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <1233802226-23386-1-git-send-email-arve@android.com> <200902112323.53421.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: 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: Arve =?iso-8859-1?q?Hj=F8nnev=E5g?= 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 Thursday 12 February 2009, Arve Hj=F8nnev=E5g wrote: > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> >> >> It allows wakelocks with timeouts [--snip--] > > Well, you put quite a lot of effort into making this nicely debuggable = and so > > on, but I think you should have submitted the minimal core functionalit= y first > > to see if people were comfortable with it. > = > The code I submitted is usable and tested. Unfortunately, that doesn't help it a lot. There's a lot of usable and tes= ted code out of the kernel. In general, kernel code is mergeable if people agree with it, which is not = the case with your patches. > Without wakelocks we cannot use suspend, and without wakelock timeouts > we cannot pass events to components that do not use wakelocks. This is a very strong statement, as though there had not been any alternati= ve to the wakelocks. I don't really think it's the case. Thanks, Rafael