[lkml]   [2003]   [Sep]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Fix up power managment in 2.6
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 12:19:20AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Please don't - that means undoing all the work I've put in to make
> > ARM work again, and I don't have time to play silly games like this.
> Okay, so Patrick broke ARM and you fixed it. But he also broke i386 and
> x86-64; and it is not at all clear that his "newer" version is better
> than the old one. [Really, what's the advantage? AFAICS it is more
> complicated and less flexible, putting "suspend" method to bus as
> oppossed to device].

I don't think PCI device support broke - Pat seems to have fixed up
all that fairly nicely, so the driver model change should be

The main advantage from a driver writers point of view is the disposal
of the "level" argument. (Doesn't really affect x86, PCI drivers never
had visibility of this.)

However, I'll let the PPC people justify the real reason for the driver
model change, since it was /their/ requirement that caused it, and I'm
not going to fight their battles for them. (although I seem to be doing
exactly that while wasting my time here.)

It's about time that the people in the PPC community, who were the main
guys pushing for the driver model change, spoke up and justified this.

Russell King ( The developer of ARM Linux

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:48    [W:0.065 / U:4.064 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site