From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Locke Subject: Re: community PM requirements/issues and PowerOP [Was: Re: So, what's the status on the recent patches here?] Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 14:50:04 -0700 Message-ID: References: <450516E8.9010403@gmail.com> <20060911082025.GD1898@elf.ucw.cz> <450530BD.8090101@gmail.com> <20060911193637.GA11901@elf.ucw.cz> <20060911200636.GC11901@elf.ucw.cz> <20060911200936.GA12433@elf.ucw.cz> <6d5d95c88706be8a338f703579cd62b9@nomadgs.com> <20060911210634.GI11901@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v624) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20060911210634.GI11901@elf.ucw.cz> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org To: Pavel Machek , Dave Jones , Dominik Brodowski , Greg KH , David Brownell Cc: pm list , Preece Scott-PREECE List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org 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 >