lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Apr]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [linux-pm] Re: [RFC] Driver States
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@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-04-06 13:31    [W:0.138 / U:16.168 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site