On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 02:56:22PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > If the conclusion is that we don't have anything generic within the > kernel then it'd be good to at least have this explicitly spelled out so > that we're clear what everyone thinks is going on here and how things > are supposed to work. At the minute it doesn't feel like we've had the > discussion so we could end up working at cross purposes. I don't want > to end up in the situation where I have to work around the APIs I'm > using without the relevant maintainers having sight of that since that > not only am I likely to be missing some existing solution to the problem > but is also prone to causing problems maintaining the underlying API. We seem to have ended up managing most of our PM infrastructure iteratively. If the concern is more about best practices than intrinsic incompatibilities, I'd lean towards us being better off merging this now and then working things out over the next few releases as we get a better understanding of the implications. The main thing that we have to get right in the short term is the userspace API - everything else is easier to fix up as we go along. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
