Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management?

[Nigel Cunningham <nigel@nigel.suspend2.net>]

On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 01:27 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, 11 February 2007 00:45, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> > Am 10.02.2007 23:37 schrieb Nigel Cunningham:
> > > If your device requires power management, and you know it requires power
> > > management, why not just implement power management? Doing -ENOSYS
> > > instead is like saying -ESPAMMEBECAUSEIMLAZY.
> > 
> > Like it or not, power management is far from trivial, and people
> > writing device drivers have limited resources. Calling them lazy
> > does not help that in the least. If you try to put pressure on them
> > by refusing to merge their work as long as it doesn't provide this
> > or that functionality, you *may* end up with a few drivers having
> > that functionality which otherwise wouldn't, but you *will* also
> > end up with a number of drivers never making it into the kernel
> > because their authors just have to give up.
> > 
> > Also, in your argument you neglected a few cases:
> > - What if my device does not require power management?
> > - What if I don't know whether my device requires power management?
> > - What if I know my device would require power management, but don't
> >   know how to implement it?
> 
> Plus:
> - What if I'm planning to implement the power managemet, but not just right
> now?

Why not right now?
 
Regards,

Nigel

-
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/