On Sun 2006-09-03 17:40:27, Scott E. Preece wrote: > > | From: Pavel Machek<pavel at ucw.cz> > | > | On Sun 2006-09-03 17:12:22, Scott E. Preece wrote: > | > | From: Pavel Machek<pavel at ucw.cz> > | > Not speaking to either of the current code submissions, I would say that > | > having a kernel interface for defining OPs and a kernel interface for > | > setting the OP, was a reasonably clean interface. > | > | Well, me and Rafael disagree, and you do not really listen to > | arguments. Now you can either fix the interface, or try to submit code > | to lkml despite our NAKs. Go ahead and prepare for some flaming... > --- > > I think I'm listening to arguments just as much as you guys are! We just > disagree. What are your criteria for "a clean interface"? Why do you > think that n separate set-parameter() interfaces, with no consistency > relationship between them, are cleaner than one define-op() and one > set-op() interface? Because we already have cpufreq-set-parameter() interface and enter-suspend-state() interface. We can't really get rid of them. If you add set-op() replacing both cpufreq-set-parameter() and enter-suspend-state(), we'll end up with two different interfaces for each interface; that's considered "mess". Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
