On Sat, 20 Aug 2011, Mark Brown wrote: > The original issue that Kevin raised and CCed me in on was the idea of > exposing raw per-device wakeup latency constraints to userspace; it > seems much better to expose user level requirements via subsystem > interfaces and let the subsystem and driver translate these into actual > wakeup latency constraints: > > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/linux-pm/2011-August/032422.html > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/linux-pm/2011-August/032428.html > > This is much easier for users as it translates into something they're > actually doing (and in most cases the driver can make it Just Work) and > it means that off the shelf applications will end up tuning the system > appropriately by themselves. I'm additionally concerned that if we > expose this stuff directly to userspace that's an open invitation to > driver authors to not even bother trying to make the kernel figure this > stuff out by itself and to instead tie the system together with magic > userspace. Can you give a couple of examples to illustrate these points? I think it would help a lot to make the conversation more concrete. Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
