* Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > .42 removal might be too fast, considering the typical release schedule of > > Linux distributions. And i'm still doubting the removal itself: we are > > adding lots of special-purpose subarch drivers to arch/x86/ as we speak > > (the embedded mess coming to x86) - which drivers will be tomorrow's APM > > code. On what grounds do we treat APM support differently? > > > > Our general compatibility with old hardware is an *asset* that we should value. > > My guess is that the customers have died off, How do we know that? Users are on a bell curve, with a fat tail. If stuff just works - and that's not unexpected from relatively simple (and most likely to be used) APM functionality like APM-poweroff, why should they ever report problems? Removing a driver based on lack of visible feedback is like removing 190,000 apps from a 200,000 apps app store, on the (valid) observation that the top 1000 apps receive 99% of the traffic and use so the remaining 1% are just a maintenance burden. There's value in the concept of knowing that we do not do forced obscolescence in Linux and there's a value in a very broad "there's a driver for that" concept, just like there's value in a very broad "there's an app for that" concept. > and so the code is no longer an asset, but a maintenance liability. > > If there is a buzzing community of people running 2011 > linux kernels on their ancient laptops in APM mode, > then the APM maintainer would probably know about them. Not if most of them use APM-poweroff. I think i even had a desktop box (not a laptop) that supported APM suspend (or am i mistaken there, was APM suspend support only limited to laptops?). Thanks, Ingo _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
