Re: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC] Driver States

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> > You have a few things here that can easily conflict, and that will be
> > developed at different paces. I like the direction that it's going, but
> > how do you intend to do it gradually. I.e. what to do first?
> 
> I think the first step would be for us to all agree on a design, whether
> it be this one or another, so we can began planning for long term
> changes.
> 
> My arguments for these changes are as follows:

0. I do not see how to gradually roll this in.

>      4. Having responsibilities at each driver level encourages a
>         layered and object based design, reducing code duplication and
>         complexity.

Unfortunately, you'll be retrofiting this to existing drivers. AFAICS,
trying to force existing driver to "layered and object based design"
can only result in mess.
								Pavel
-- 
People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers...
...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/