Re: Attempted summary of suspend-blockers LKML thread, take three

Felipe Contreras
2010-08-13T11:09:03Z

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:19:34 -0700
> Brian Swetland <swetland@google.com> wrote:
>> Question though -- has every feature ever added to the kernel been a
>> feature that there's pre-existing usage of?  Seems like a chicken and
>> egg problem.  Also, some people seem to think there's value in being
>> able to build kernels "out of the box" that work with the Android
>> userspace -- given that there are a few devices out there that have
>> that userspace on 'em.
>
> We generally try to merge new features like this along with code that
> uses said feature, but there are always exceptions.  We've merged code
> one release or more before the new code gets used for example, which is
> fine IMO.  What we don't want to see is some new drop of code added and
> abandoned, but you already knew that.

If Android guys provided a bare minimal Debian system with suspend
blockers that people can take a look at and try, I think that would be
a good proof of concept. And a bare minimum to get the patches merged.

> At any rate, if Felipe is the only one arguing against including
> suspend blockers in the kernel, you're probably in good shape.  Based
> on my (rather cursory I admit) evaluation of this thread, it seems like
> reasonable people agree that there's a place for a suspend blocker like
> API in the kernel, and that dynamic power management is also highly
> desirable.  So where's the git pull request already? :)

I certainly have been the more vocal recently, but if that's confusing
you, I can shut up and let others do the argumentation. I remember at
least Alan Cox, Alan Stern, Thomas Gleixner, Kevin Hilman, Felipe
Balbi, Tony Lindgren, and Igor Stopa against them.

--
Felipe Contreras
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org