From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932603AbXBKWl0 (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Feb 2007 17:41:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932604AbXBKWlZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Feb 2007 17:41:25 -0500 Received: from nigel.suspend2.net ([203.171.70.205]:43343 "EHLO nigel.suspend2.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932603AbXBKWlY (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Feb 2007 17:41:24 -0500 Subject: Re: NAK new drivers without proper power management? From: Nigel Cunningham Reply-To: nigel@nigel.suspend2.net To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Tilman Schmidt , Pavel Machek , Arjan van de Ven , LKML In-Reply-To: <200702110127.35631.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <1171058269.1484.64.camel@nigel.suspend2.net> <1171147026.19894.16.camel@nigel.suspend2.net> <45CE5934.3020801@imap.cc> <200702110127.35631.rjw@sisk.pl> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:41:23 +1100 Message-Id: <1171233683.4493.81.camel@nigel.suspend2.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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