On Thursday 13 May 2010, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Daniel Walker <dwalker@xxxxxxxxxx> [100513 14:28]: > > 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. > > I agree with Daniel here. We should keep merging the drivers separate > from the suspend blocks issues. Unfortunately, that's completely unrealistic. Please refer to the Greg's reply for details. Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
