"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> writes: > On Thursday 13 May 2010, Tony Lindgren wrote: >> * Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> [100513 14:16]: [...] >> >> > It solves a practical issue that _at_ _the_ _moment_ cannot be solved >> > differently, while there's a growing number of out-of-tree drivers depending >> > on this framework. We need those drivers in and because we don't have any >> > viable alternative at hand, we have no good reason to reject it. >> >> Nothing is preventing merging the drivers can be merged without >> these calls. > > And yet, there _is_ a growing nuber of drivers that don't get merge because > of that. That's _reality_. Are you going to discuss with facts, or what? It may be reality, but IMO, "preventing other drivers" isn't a good *technical* argument for merging a feature. It feels like these "for the 'good' of the community" arguments are being used to trump the technical arguments. Maybe we need to keep the separate. Distros (especially embedded ones) have long had out of tree features that create barriers to getting other drivers upstream. While it might be nice to see all those features upstream, no one has argued that they should get merged simply because they create a barrier. Each feature should be merged on its own technical merit. Kevin _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
