On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 23:27 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Because someone would have to remove suspend blockers (or rather wakelocks) > from the drivers, test that they work correctly without suspend blockers and > submit the modified versions. Going forward, every party responsible for such > a driver would have to maintain an out-of-tree version with suspend blockers > (or wakelocks) anyway, so the incentive to do that is zero. They should work without wakelock since wakelock are optional .. I mean there's nothing in suspend blockers I've seen that indicates it's required for some drivers to work. So it's just a matter of patching out the wakelocks, with no need to re-test anything. You get the driver mainlined, then maintain a small patch to add wakelocks. Not hard at all , with lots of incentive to do so since you don't have to maintain such a large block of code out of tree. > Practically, as long as the opportunistic suspend is out of tree, there will be > a _growing_ number of out-of-tree drivers out there, which is not acceptable > in the long run. I don't see why your saying that. These driver should work with out all of this, which means they can get mainlined right now. Daniel _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
