lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Oct]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v1 01/10] of: Rename "poweroff-source" property to "system-power-controller"
    On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 11:47:41AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
    > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 05:41:03PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
    > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 11:38:40AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
    > > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 04:26:46PM +0000, Romain Perier wrote:
    > > > > As discussed on the mailing list, it makes more sense to rename this property
    > > > > to "system-power-controller". Problem being that the word "source" usually tends
    > > > > to be used for inputs and that is out of control of the OS. The poweroff
    > > > > capability is an output which simply turns the system-power off. Also, this
    > > > > property might be used by drivers which power-off the system and power back on
    > > > > subsequent RTC alarms. This seems to suggest to remove "poweroff" from the
    > > > > property name and to choose "system-power-controller" as the more generic name.
    > > > > This patchs adds the required renaming changes and defines an helper function
    > > > > which is compatible with both properties, the old one prefixed by a vendor name
    > > > > and the new one without any prefix.
    > >
    > > > I think you still need to support poweroff-source since it has been
    > > > released on a stable kernel. Perhaps add a warning message telling users
    > > > it's deprecated and asking them to switch over to
    > > > system-power-controller ? Still, simply removing it isn't very nice.
    > >
    > > No, Romain sent a patch that replaced "<vendor>,system-power-controller"
    > > with "poweroff-source". It's now in Mark's tree (for v3.19), and this
    > > series "reverts" to the old name minus the vendor-prefix.
    >
    > oh, so poweroff-source isn't in Linus' tree yet ? (/me goes grep)
    >
    > Then it should be fine. My bad.
    >
    > Many of the other comments are still valid because even though
    > poweroff-source isn't in mainline yet, this series still creates
    > bisection points which are broken. The best solution would be to drop
    > all those patches from Mark's tree. Read, not revert, drop.

    I agree.

    Johan


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2014-10-27 18:41    [W:3.592 / U:0.000 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site