On Friday 26 January 2007 5:19 pm, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 04:42:56PM -0800, David Brownell wrote: > > On Friday 26 January 2007 3:15 pm, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > It's certainly the case that fixing those drivers would result in a > > > better long-term situation - however, nobody currently seems to have any > > > interest in doing so... > > > > And the way these things work, unfortunately, is that merging your patch > > would ensure nobody ever gets such interest. Removing that "state" file > > (and its bogus infrastructure) has already taken a few years too long. > > I'd argue that the onus is on those who wish to remove the interface to > ensure that equivalent functionality exists first.
Are you now arguing that "rmmod $DRIVER" doesn't suffice for what you were wanting to do? If so, why? What's the delta in power usage? > Now this is what throws me somewhat. Last May, you argued strongly in > favour of keeping the interface: > > "Which IMO makes removing this a Bad Thing. It needs to have some > kind of replacement in place before the "magic numbers" go away." > > (http://lists.osdl.org/pipermail/linux-pm/2006-May/002376.html) Specifically to support driver testing. Recall that such testing was at that time the only known quasi-viable use of that interface. (And despite your pushback, it still seems that way to me...) I've changed my mind about that; it's just as easy to whip up custom test logic, and in any case the stuff that I most needed to test (wakeup events) can't be tested like that. Bad testing infrastructure doesn't really do anyone favors, anyway; too much time spent with workarounds, many of which cover up the bugs you're trying to uncover by testing. - Dave - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
