[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87aa0xqifj.fsf@ti.com>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 16:16:00 -0700
From: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>
To: "Menon\, Nishanth" <nm@...com>
Cc: "J\, KEERTHY" <j-keerthy@...com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"AnilKumar\, Chimata" <anilkumar@...com>,
"linux-pm\@lists.linux-foundation.org"
<linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-omap\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
"Pihet-XID\, Jean" <j-pihet@...com>,
"linux-arm-kernel\@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH V3 00/10] PM: Create the AVS(Adaptive Voltage Scaling)
"Menon, Nishanth" <nm@...com> writes:
> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com> wrote:
>> "Woodruff, Richard" <r-woodruff2@...com> writes:
>>
>>>> From: Hilman, Kevin
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 5:17 PM
>>>
>>>> A basic OMAP AVS driver has been in mainline for a long time, yet we
>>>> have not seen support submitted for all of these features.
>>>
>>> 1.5/3.5 is a feature.
>>
>> And I'm still waiting for it to be submitted upstream.
>>
>>> ABB is requirement for a production useable driver. Higher speed rated
>>> OMAP4 and all OMAP5 added these to be useable.
>>
>> ditto
>>
>>> Yes this is effort. Point of mentioning is to raise awareness of need.
>>
>> I'm well aware of the need.
>>
>>> Yet to be added feature has different meaning than functional gap.
>>
>> And both need to be submitted upstream.
>
> SR 1.5: http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=129933897910785&w=2
> ABB: http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=130939399209099&w=2
>
> I am not sure what you mean "need to be submitted upstream"?
You're right. I should've said re-submitted and merged. Both have been
submitted (and reviewed) but no follow up submissions after review, and
thus they're still out of tree.
> Just tired of seeing things perpetually change without considering
> even how to handle features that are mandatory for SoC even with code
> posted upstream to show exactly what it takes..
I'm sorry, but this is not perpetual change.
This driver has been upstream in its current (admittedly
feature-limited) form for a long time, the only thing changing in
$SUBJECT series is the location of the driver. Why all the fuss about
the missing features now?
> I think you do mean merged upstream in this context.
Correct.
Frameworks always have limitations. The way they get extended/expanded
etc. is by the submission/review/merging of support for new
features/requirements. The process for that is the same as any feature
in any part of the kernel.
Evolution, not intelligent design[1].
All of that being said, I'm not sure why this thread was hijacked for
this debate in the first place. The point of $SUBJECT series is simply
to move and *existing* framework from arch/arm out to drivers. The only
changes done are cleanups to make this move possible.
I for one would welcome extending this framework to ensure it supports
all the SoC features. I just don't want those features to be a
prerequisite for this move from arch/arm to drivers.
Please, let's get this moved to drivers, and then add support for the
missing features.
Thanks,
Kevin
[1] http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Kernel_Evolution
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists