From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [RFC] Should we add Android's Interactive governor into mainline now? Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 11:47:01 +0530 Message-ID: <20160513061701.GD4723@vireshk-i7> References: <20160512163648.GB12886@graphite.smuckle.net> <20160512211012.GA28594@graphite.smuckle.net> <20160513032156.GE3415@vireshk-i7> <20160513061438.GB28594@graphite.smuckle.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f44.google.com ([209.85.220.44]:35311 "EHLO mail-pa0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750918AbcEMGRE (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 May 2016 02:17:04 -0400 Received: by mail-pa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id iv1so37386399pac.2 for ; Thu, 12 May 2016 23:17:04 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160513061438.GB28594@graphite.smuckle.net> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Steve Muckle Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Peter Zijlstra , Linaro Kernel Mailman List , Ingo Molnar , Morten Rasmussen , Juri Lelli , Vincent Guittot On 12-05-16, 23:14, Steve Muckle wrote: > Is there precedent for putting in artificial dependencies (i.e. ones > with no real runtime technical justification) for this kind of purpose, > i.e. to limit who starts using a merged feature? It seems a bit messy to me. I am against doing that as well. It was just an option if we want to *force* people to not use it :) I think we better leave it to individuals to choose what they want (we can't control that anyway) and lets include interactive. Will do some work on that soon. -- viresh