Hi Santosh, On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote: > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I didn't find any mention here about why are we going in this path and not > in the direction proposed in another RFC [1] > I have already given my comments[2] against the introduction of another PD > layer which can be avoided easily as demonstrated by the RFC[1]. The comments > are still applicable for this series too. > > We really need to reduce OMAP specific framework overhead and > move towards more generic PM frameworks. For me, this series is > a step back-ward from that direction. Am really sorry for being critical > again but I remain unconvinced about this series and the problem it > is trying to solve. > > May be you have valid reasons not to follow the approach in [1] and in > that case, it will be good to clarify that so that some of us get > to know your rationale. I've asked Jean to handle the work of evaluating and/or integrating any feedback from you and Rajendra into this series. Jean, has this latest series fully considered those issues? Or are there still some areas of misalignment / lack of clarity? Anyway. If there's a problem with this process, it sounds like you, Rajendra, Jean, Benoît and I should schedule some time to talk over the same issues that you discussed with me on the phone. Perhaps next week? - Paul
