On Friday 14 May 2010, Kevin Hilman wrote: > 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. I'm against that, sorry. > 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. But apparently it is considered as a suitable excuse. Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
