On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > This adds typechecking to suspend types and powerdown types... This
> > > should solve at least part of suspend type confusion. There should be
> > > no code changes generated by this one. I'd like to see it applied...
> >
> > drivers/acpi/sleep/main.c:171: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type
> > drivers/acpi/sleep/main.c:172: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type
> > drivers/acpi/sleep/main.c:173: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type
> >
> > static struct pm_ops acpi_pm_ops = {
> > .prepare = acpi_pm_prepare,
> > .enter = acpi_pm_enter,
> > .finish = acpi_pm_finish,
> > };
> >
> > I'll drop this one. Please try again when things have calmed down a
> > > bit.
>
> I do not know if things are calm enough now... I forgot about acpi
> pieces. Hmm, and about some arm pieces. This should fix it.
Sorry, I'm not going to support this until we have consensus about the
semantics and the types. It's just a band-aid as-is. Ben said:
The patches are easily done, but for once, I want to make sure we all
agree on the semantics before coding anything.
I'm definitely not a fan of meetings, despite beeing at IBM, but I'm
tired of seeing broken band aid patches on top of eachother with
infinite debates following each time.
</quote>
I agree 100%. Unless you can be like Ingo and supply a complete, panoptic
solution and are willing to iterate over it several times until it's
perfect, I don't want to have to fight battles over this on more than one
front (again and again, ad infinitum).
Thanks,
Pat
