> >>What does your going quiet mean? You have had some good feedback so I > >>much prefer we reach some sort of understanding. If your final > >>statement is that PowerOP is not needed and you are never going to > >>like > >>it or ACK It, let us know. We can agree to disagree. > > > >You got the interfaces wrong. While I believe that something like > >powerop can indeed be useful for system-on-chip platforms, I do not > >think it should be exposed outside of kernel. > > > Ok. I don't think its wrong because its designed from understanding > the requirements of pm software for embedded mobile devices. I >think > the embedded folk all agree that the type of interface submitted is > required. I don't understand why you think its wrong. Just to be So you'll have to do lots of explaining. On lkml. > clear, your previous email made it very clear you don't like the > userspace interface but this email says interfaces generically. I meant user<->kernel interface. > assuming your only objection at this point is the userspace interface. > We are more than willing to work this out. The current sysfs > interface is surrounded by ifdefs and is optional. If there is no > exposure to userspace, then testing/debuging will be more difficult. Having interface surrounded by #ifdefs is evil. You can test it separately, then just remove that code before submission. Or maybe move it to debugfs. > Greg, Pavel, Dominik, Dave J and Dave B, > > I would like to get a plan in place for acceptance with the power > management guys before we move this to lkml. Documentation/SubmittingPatches says: #5) Select your CC (e-mail carbon copy) list. # #Unless you have a reason NOT to do so, CC #linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org. and sorry, but I insist on using proper procedure here. And no, "we are afraid of being flamed" is not good enough reason not to. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
