Re: [PATCH 4/4] USB: export autosuspend delay in sysfs

On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 06:23:08PM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> On Friday 23 February 2007 5:05 pm, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Greg KH wrote:
> 
> > > I have heard rumors that both Intel and mvista are starting to dig up
> > > the old patches and want to get this stuff all sorted out and into the
> > > main kernel tree.  Hopefully something comes of it...
> 
> Certainly I'd anticipate much more email.  Previous discussions have been
> inconclusive, IMO basically because they were too much in the category
> of "solution in search of problem".  Also, ISTR they didn't even start
> to get near device-specific power management... but, maybe you're not
> thinking about the patches I'm recalling!

No, I'm thinking of the same mess :)

And yes, I would expect a lot of email about this too, or at least I
sure hope so...

> > My crystal ball is looking particularly cloudy today.  Eventually 
> > something will have to be done, but will it be done independently by each 
> > subsystem?  Or will there be a centralized PM core API with a 
> > subsystem-specific hook?  I have no idea.
> 
> If I were to bet, I'd say per-subsystem approaches will work better
> than any Grand Unified/Centralized Scheme.  Per-driver approaches will
> also be needed.

Agreed.

> > So it comes down to the same question: Should I submit this USB-only 
> > facility for inclusion now, with the understanding that it may need to be 
> > changed later?
> 
> I'd say submit it, but with a clear statement about how changeable the
> interface is.  Such a statement would be a kind of new ground for Linux,
> which is needed ... some folk take the wrong lesson about stability of
> kernel interfaces, and want all interfaces to be stable.  That's not a
> realistic expectation (IMO) in cases where some experimentation is needed
> to reach the eventual answer.  But it _is_ realistic to expect that if
> an interface isn't fully cooked, it will be declared as such ... so that
> userspace developers will at least know they need to communicate with the
> kernel developers if they plan to make heavy use of that interface.

That's what Documentation/ABI/ is there for :)

thanks,

greg k-h

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel