On Thursday 13 May 2010, Tony Lindgren wrote:
quoted text
> * Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com> [100513 14:28]:
> > On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 23:27 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > 
> > > Because someone would have to remove suspend blockers (or rather wakelocks)
> > > from the drivers, test that they work correctly without suspend blockers and
> > > submit the modified versions.  Going forward, every party responsible for such
> > > a driver would have to maintain an out-of-tree version with suspend blockers
> > > (or wakelocks) anyway, so the incentive to do that is zero.
> > 
> > They should work without wakelock since wakelock are optional .. I mean
> > there's nothing in suspend blockers I've seen that indicates it's
> > required for some drivers to work. So it's just a matter of patching out
> > the wakelocks, with no need to re-test anything.
> > 
> > You get the driver mainlined, then maintain a small patch to add
> > wakelocks. Not hard at all , with lots of incentive to do so since you
> > don't have to maintain such a large block of code out of tree.
> > 
> > > Practically, as long as the opportunistic suspend is out of tree, there will be
> > > a _growing_ number of out-of-tree drivers out there, which is not acceptable
> > > in the long run.
> > 
> > I don't see why your saying that. These driver should work with out all
> > of this, which means they can get mainlined right now.
> 
> I agree with Daniel here. We should keep merging the drivers separate
> from the suspend blocks issues.

Unfortunately, that's completely unrealistic.  Please refer to the Greg's reply
for details.

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