[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1273785399.19100.98.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 14:16:39 -0700
From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>,
Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...prootsystems.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>, magnus.damm@...il.com,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
mark gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Geoff Smith <geoffx.smith@...el.com>,
Benoît Cousson <b-cousson@...com>,
linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lrg@...mlogic.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 6)
On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 23:11 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday 13 May 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 12:36:34PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 20:11 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > > See feature-removal-schedule.txt. So far we have no indication that it's
> > > > going to be replaced, because nobody has actually suggested a working
> > > > way to do this better. If we had a concrete implementation proposal for
> > > > that then we'd be in a pretty different position right now.
> > >
> > > Ok, feature-removal-schedule.txt applies to everything tho. What your
> > > saying is that if this interface only last a short time it might take 6
> > > months, if it last for a long time it would take longer. There's no easy
> > > way to know that Google is the only user after some amount of time
> > > passes.
> >
> > If the interface is there for a long time, it's because we haven't come
> > up with anything better. And if we haven't come up with anything better,
> > the interface deserves to be there.
>
> Moreover, the interface is already in use out-of-tree and that usage is
> actually _growing_, so we have a growing number of out-of-tree drivers that
> aren't megrgeable for this very reason.
Why can't we merge the drivers? Drivers are just drivers, they don't
need this to get merged. (They need it to work with Android)
Daniel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists