On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 05:41:03PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 11:38:40AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 04:26:46PM +0000, Romain Perier wrote: > > > As discussed on the mailing list, it makes more sense to rename this property > > > to "system-power-controller". Problem being that the word "source" usually tends > > > to be used for inputs and that is out of control of the OS. The poweroff > > > capability is an output which simply turns the system-power off. Also, this > > > property might be used by drivers which power-off the system and power back on > > > subsequent RTC alarms. This seems to suggest to remove "poweroff" from the > > > property name and to choose "system-power-controller" as the more generic name. > > > This patchs adds the required renaming changes and defines an helper function > > > which is compatible with both properties, the old one prefixed by a vendor name > > > and the new one without any prefix. > > > I think you still need to support poweroff-source since it has been > > released on a stable kernel. Perhaps add a warning message telling users > > it's deprecated and asking them to switch over to > > system-power-controller ? Still, simply removing it isn't very nice. > > No, Romain sent a patch that replaced "<vendor>,system-power-controller" > with "poweroff-source". It's now in Mark's tree (for v3.19), and this > series "reverts" to the old name minus the vendor-prefix. oh, so poweroff-source isn't in Linus' tree yet ? (/me goes grep) Then it should be fine. My bad. Many of the other comments are still valid because even though poweroff-source isn't in mainline yet, this series still creates bisection points which are broken. The best solution would be to drop all those patches from Mark's tree. Read, not revert, drop. -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
