Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263343AbTIAWae (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Sep 2003 18:30:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263348AbTIAWae (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Sep 2003 18:30:34 -0400 Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([212.18.232.186]:48135 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263343AbTIAWa1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Sep 2003 18:30:27 -0400 Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 23:30:23 +0100 From: Russell King To: Pavel Machek Cc: Linus Torvalds , kernel list , Patrick Mochel Subject: Re: Fix up power managment in 2.6 Message-ID: <20030901233023.F22682@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mail-Followup-To: Pavel Machek , Linus Torvalds , kernel list , Patrick Mochel References: <20030831232812.GA129@elf.ucw.cz> <20030901211220.GD342@elf.ucw.cz> <20030901225243.D22682@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20030901221920.GE342@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20030901221920.GE342@elf.ucw.cz>; from pavel@suse.cz on Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 12:19:20AM +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 Content-Length: 1621 Lines: 35 On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 12:19:20AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Please don't - that means undoing all the work I've put in to make > > ARM work again, and I don't have time to play silly games like this. > > Okay, so Patrick broke ARM and you fixed it. But he also broke i386 and > x86-64; and it is not at all clear that his "newer" version is better > than the old one. [Really, what's the advantage? AFAICS it is more > complicated and less flexible, putting "suspend" method to bus as > oppossed to device]. I don't think PCI device support broke - Pat seems to have fixed up all that fairly nicely, so the driver model change should be transparent. The main advantage from a driver writers point of view is the disposal of the "level" argument. (Doesn't really affect x86, PCI drivers never had visibility of this.) However, I'll let the PPC people justify the real reason for the driver model change, since it was /their/ requirement that caused it, and I'm not going to fight their battles for them. (although I seem to be doing exactly that while wasting my time here.) It's about time that the people in the PPC community, who were the main guys pushing for the driver model change, spoke up and justified this. -- Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html - 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/