On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 6:22 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Timur Tabi <timur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>> I still prefer this as debugfs and not as sysfs ABI. We already have >>> issues with multiple interfaces for the same thing. E.g. cpufreq on x86. >>> I don't want this to end up in the same way after few years. CPUIdle >>> sysfs should be only sysfs ABI for these, adding an alternative is >>> inviting troubles for future especially if some user-space starts using >>> it and we will be stuck with that. Moreover with more h/w controlled >>> idle we may not provide accurate data sooner. >>> >>> Sorry for the noise, I will shup up now ;). Since this may be last >>> chance to make some noise, I am trying it. I completely understand that >>> this is just my opinion and am fine if others thinks it's good to make >>> this sysfs ABI. >> >> Unfortunately, I think Prashanth really needs a specific requirement >> rather than opinions. This patch has been languishing for over a >> month, and we still have no idea whether it will make 4.15 or if >> Prashanth is *required* to make any more changes. > > No, this is not how it works. > > If you want *me* to apply it, which seems to be the case, I need to be > convinced that applying it is a good idea. > > You haven't so far. You haven't convinced me so far. Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
