From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964972AbdKQH4J (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Nov 2017 02:56:09 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f47.google.com ([74.125.82.47]:39988 "EHLO mail-wm0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964945AbdKQHzq (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Nov 2017 02:55:46 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMZgj8u2w4LXdP9HgkbANbpgUWlUf8zuXgphoOCzaLqA/azD0FTm6fsApjsnP44mQzSmJxKFOA== Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] cpu_cooling: Drop static-power related stuff To: Viresh Kumar , "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Eduardo Valentin , Rafael Wysocki , Amit Daniel Kachhap , Javi Merino , Zhang Rui , Steven Rostedt , Ingo Molnar , Linux PM , Vincent Guittot , lukasz.luba@arm.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List , Javi Merino , Punit Agrawal References: <761f7963-8b6d-b002-5404-a9ad0acf84d6@linaro.org> <20171115154311.GA3005@localhost.localdomain> <20171116024704.GQ3257@vireshk-i7> From: Daniel Lezcano Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 08:55:42 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171116024704.GQ3257@vireshk-i7> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 16/11/2017 03:47, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 15-11-17, 19:17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> However, I would like to see a clear declaration from whoever is >> maintaining that code today that there is a plan in place to upstream >> it and that this plan will actually be acted on. And, better yet, >> *when* that can be expected to happen. > > Exactly what I have been advocating. > > And there is bunch of other places where such examples can be seen. > For example multiple regulator support in the OPP framework, which I > added an year ago hasn't seen a user yet. And I am pushing the TI guys > (who wanted it badly) to upstream their code before we remove that as > well :) > > Again, someone has to come up and take responsibility of getting > static power platform support upstream in a definite amount of time. Instead of removing entirely the code, why not convert this to a DT based info and put the Juno values back ? -- Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog