From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268324AbTGIN4E (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jul 2003 09:56:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268325AbTGIN4E (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jul 2003 09:56:04 -0400 Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([212.18.232.186]:64527 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268324AbTGIN4B (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jul 2003 09:56:01 -0400 Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 15:10:32 +0100 From: Russell King To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: James Simmons , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Fbdev development list Subject: Re: [Linux-fbdev-devel] fbdev and power management Message-ID: <20030709151032.A22612@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mail-Followup-To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , James Simmons , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Fbdev development list References: <1057750557.514.22.camel@gaston> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <1057750557.514.22.camel@gaston>; from benh@kernel.crashing.org on Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 01:35:58PM +0200 X-Message-Flag: Your copy of Microsoft Outlook is vulnerable to viruses. See www.mutt.org for more details. Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 01:35:58PM +0200, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > Note: The Power Management isn't well implemented in 2.5 yet. The > infrastructure is mostly there, but the driver side semantics are > still wrong. Patrick Mochel has a new implementation that is much > better, but he didn't merge it upstream yet. I expect this will > happen around Kernel Summit / OLS. I'm slightly concerned by this. There are a growing amount of drivers in 2.5 which are being made to work with the existing power management system. This "new" system seems to have been hanging around for about 4 months now with no visible further work, presumably so that a paper can be presented before its release. My concern is that there has been: - 4 months of non-exposure of this work - 4 months of making the current system work - and putting it in will require a fair number of drivers to be re-worked. Apart from driver re-work and that the core interfaces are supposed to be stable, what are the technical arguments against merging it, say, today? -- Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html