Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH 0/8] Suspend block api (version 6)

From: Kevin Hilman
Date: Fri May 14 2010 - 18:46:09 EST


"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> writes:

> 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.

OK, I'll bite... Why?

>> 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.

No, it is not a _technical_ excuse. Just a healthy, experience-based
dose of skepticism.

It was expressed because I find the arguments above for merging
because it prevents out-of-tree drivers from merging quite
unconvincing. This is not just about opportunistic suspend + suspend
blockers specifically but comes from several years experience in the
embedded Linux world.

Kevin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/