Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758019Ab0FFPq7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Jun 2010 11:46:59 -0400 Received: from www.tglx.de ([62.245.132.106]:51093 "EHLO www.tglx.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756607Ab0FFPq5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Jun 2010 11:46:57 -0400 Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 17:46:12 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: James Bottomley cc: Alan Cox , Florian Mickler , Vitaly Wool , Brian Swetland , =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Arve_Hj=F8nnev=E5g?= , Arjan van de Ven , tytso@mit.edu, Peter Zijlstra , "H. Peter Anvin" , LKML , Neil Brown , Linux PM , Ingo Molnar , Linux OMAP Mailing List , Linus Torvalds , Felipe Balbi Subject: Re: [linux-pm] suspend blockers & Android integration In-Reply-To: <1275834706.7227.545.camel@mulgrave.site> Message-ID: References: <1275834706.7227.545.camel@mulgrave.site> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1940 Lines: 45 On Sun, 6 Jun 2010, James Bottomley wrote: > > 3. We've lost sight of one of the original goals, which was to > bring the android tree close enough to the kernel so that the > android downstream driver and board producers don't have to > choose between the android kernel and vanilla kernel. There are two ways to do that w/o creating a dependcy on anything. 1) merge the drivers w/o the suspend_blockers. It's not rocket science to have a patch which brings them back for android. 2) merge the drivers with empty stub implementations for annotation. android just has to patch in the real one. While I'd prefer #1, I' not in the way of #2. Both ways can get the drivers into the kernel and it could/should have been done right from the beginning, but now we face a situation where drivers are held hostage. Then we can sit down more relaxed and fix the stuff in a way which makes both sides happy. If we manage to replace them, we can deprecate the stub implementation and remove it after a grace period. If we rename them it's not an issue either. We can rename them right away to a qos interface, but that does not really make a difference. What we really want to avoid is implementing an user space contract in a frenzy which binds us forever. It's not the suspend_blockers which are the causing the nightmare, it's solely the drivers itself especially when there are different implementations in both trees. And frankly, the drivers in android are not in a shape which makes them flood in within 2 weeks. That's serious work to get them brushed up and polished. So that gives us quite a period of time to solve the suspend problem. Thanks, tglx -- 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/