On Saturday 05 June 2010, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Sat, 2010-06-05 at 21:04 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > I have seen recent proposals that don't require changing the whole > > > user-space. That might actually be used by other players. > > > > Sure, an approach benefitting more platforms than just Android would be better, > > but saying that the kernel shouldn't address the Android's specific needs as a > > rule if no one else has those needs too is quite too far reaching to me. > > Well, if the android people keep rejecting all sensible approaches to > power savings except their suspend blocker mess, then I don't see why we > should support their ill designed mess. Well, I certainly would like the Android people to be more appreciative of our ideas if they expect reciprocity. > We should strive to provide an interface that can be used by all > interested parties to conserve power; if Android really is the only > possible user of the interface then I don't see any reason at all to > merge it, they might as well keep it in their private tree. There is a number of kernel users that depend on Android user space (phone vendors using Android on their hardware, but providing their own drivers), so I don't think we really can identify Android with Google in that respect. Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
