Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > "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. To continue along the "for the good of the community" path... If it truly is the lack of a suspend blocker API that is preventing the merge of these out of tree drivers, I second Mark's proposal[1] to merge a noop version of the API while the technical issues continue to be discussed. Then we would see how many drivers get submitted and merged. Personally, I suspect that lack of this feature is not the real obstacle to getting these out-of-tree drivers upstream. Having this API upstream will not change the product schedules and corporate cultures that have prevented code from making its way upstream. Kevin [1] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/linux-pm/2010-May/025501.html _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
