[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171116024704.GQ3257@vireshk-i7>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 08:17:04 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...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 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.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists