On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 7:08 AM, Chris Ball <cjb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 09:45:57AM +0000, Tardy, Pierre wrote: >> Chris, >> (Sorry for top posting) >> Seems we have a intel intern disagreement. >> >> Could we have maintainer opinion on this ? > > Linus W and Ohad, any input here? Thanks, Personally I prefer the runtime PM approach. The MMC aggressive clock gating framework is great, but it ended up duplicating plumbing that already existed in the runtime PM framework (workqueue, locking, usage refcount, "get/put" API). Moving to runtime PM should reduce a fair amount of code from the MMC core, make the code more readable and easier to maintain, and let us take advantage of standard tools and knobs that are based on runtime PM's sysfs entries. But surely we don't want two frameworks doing the same; that would be too messy. And we want to be sure that any runtime PM approach would satisfy everyone's requirement. Chuanxiao, do you think you can come up with a runtime PM-based patch that provides the aggressive clock gating framework's functionality ? If functionality and requirements are preserved, I don't think anyone would complain about moving to an established and well-maintained kernel subsystem. Thanks, Ohad. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
