[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171115182047.GA4831@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 10:20:49 -0800
From: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kachhap@...il.com>,
Javi Merino <javi.merino@...nel.org>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
lukasz.luba@....com,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Javi Merino <javi.merino@....com>,
Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] cpu_cooling: Drop static-power related stuff
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 07:17:49PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:18:03AM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >> On 15/11/2017 10:19, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >> > No one has used it for the last two and half years (since it was
> >> > introduced by commit c36cf0717631 ("thermal: cpu_cooling: implement the
> >> > power cooling device API")), get rid of it.
> >> >
> >> > Cc: Javi Merino <javi.merino@....com>
> >> > Cc: Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@....com>
> >> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> >> > ---
> >>
> >> Even if I agree that is not used to in the mainstream kernel, it is part
> >> of the EAS which is currently merged in Android.
> >>
> >
> > Even though we really should care about stuff that is in mainline, this
> > specific case is about a piece of code that never made mainline, or got
> > lost on translation from one version to another. So, I am currently
> > nacking this patch and asking ARM/linaro folks to upstream the juno
> > implementation that uses static power.
>
> 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.
>
> Without such a declaration I'm afraid there is no point for the
> mainline to carry the unused code. Which apparently gets in the way
> somehow, or Viresh wouldn't have taken the time to attempt to remove
> it I suppose?
I agree here. This is mostly a code maintained by the linaro folks at
this moment (daniel, please chime in if I am wrong). If no effort is
done to get the code into mainline, there is no point in keeping the
static component as a dead code in our tree.
>
> Thanks,
> Rafael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists