On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:19:34 -0700 > Brian Swetland <swetland@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Question though -- has every feature ever added to the kernel been a >> feature that there's pre-existing usage of? Seems like a chicken and >> egg problem. Also, some people seem to think there's value in being >> able to build kernels "out of the box" that work with the Android >> userspace -- given that there are a few devices out there that have >> that userspace on 'em. > > We generally try to merge new features like this along with code that > uses said feature, but there are always exceptions. We've merged code > one release or more before the new code gets used for example, which is > fine IMO. What we don't want to see is some new drop of code added and > abandoned, but you already knew that. If Android guys provided a bare minimal Debian system with suspend blockers that people can take a look at and try, I think that would be a good proof of concept. And a bare minimum to get the patches merged. > At any rate, if Felipe is the only one arguing against including > suspend blockers in the kernel, you're probably in good shape. Based > on my (rather cursory I admit) evaluation of this thread, it seems like > reasonable people agree that there's a place for a suspend blocker like > API in the kernel, and that dynamic power management is also highly > desirable. So where's the git pull request already? :) I certainly have been the more vocal recently, but if that's confusing you, I can shut up and let others do the argumentation. I remember at least Alan Cox, Alan Stern, Thomas Gleixner, Kevin Hilman, Felipe Balbi, Tony Lindgren, and Igor Stopa against them. -- Felipe Contreras _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
