Re: community PM requirements/issues and PowerOP [Was: Re: So, what's the status on the recent patches here?]

Matthew Locke
2006-09-11T21:50:04Z

On Sep 11, 2006, at 2:06 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:

> On Mon 2006-09-11 13:33:00, Matthew Locke wrote:
>> On Sep 11, 2006, at 1:09 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>> On Mon 2006-09-11 22:06:36, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>>> On Mon 2006-09-11 12:53:27, Matthew Locke wrote:
>>>>> On Sep 11, 2006, at 12:36 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>>
>>>>> btw, if people on this list are not ready to ACK PowerOP, I would
>>>>> like
>>>>> to hear why before we go elsewhere. It looks like all major
>>>>> issues
>>>>> have been addressed by our approach and implementation.
>>>
>>> Oh and I am pretty tired of teaching you 'how to submit a patch', so
>>> if I'm quiet, do not take it as an "ACK".
> ...
>> What does your going quiet mean? You have had some good feedback so I
>> much prefer we reach some sort of understanding. If your final
>> statement is that PowerOP is not needed and you are never going to
>> like
>> it or ACK It, let us know. We can agree to disagree.
>
> You got the interfaces wrong. While I believe that something like
> powerop can indeed be useful for system-on-chip platforms, I do not
> think it should be exposed outside of kernel.

Ok. I don't think its wrong because its designed from understanding
the requirements of pm software for embedded mobile devices. I think
the embedded folk all agree that the type of interface submitted is
required. I don't understand why you think its wrong. Just to be
clear, your previous email made it very clear you don't like the
userspace interface but this email says interfaces generically. I am
assuming your only objection at this point is the userspace interface.
We are more than willing to work this out. The current sysfs
interface is surrounded by ifdefs and is optional. If there is no
exposure to userspace, then testing/debuging will be more difficult.

Greg, Pavel, Dominik, Dave J and Dave B,

I would like to get a plan in place for acceptance with the power
management guys before we move this to lkml. I propose that we submit
the current set of PowerOP patches plus final few changes (from Greg's
comments and a Documentation/ file). The patches do not affect anyone
else. The sysfs interface is optional. If necessary Eugeny and I will
maintain userspace interface patches outside the mainline for now.
Will any of the power management maintainers ACK this plan and then ACK
the patches? If no one here is willing to ACK, then I don't see what
will change by submitting to lkml.

> Pavel
> --
> (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
> (cesky, pictures)
> http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
>