From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nishanth Menon Subject: Re: Future of resource framework? Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 18:23:20 -0500 Message-ID: <4BF5C468.208@ti.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from bear.ext.ti.com ([192.94.94.41]:40995 "EHLO bear.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755008Ab0ETXXX (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 May 2010 19:23:23 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Mike Chan Cc: Kevin Hilman , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , Paul Walmsley Mike Chan had written, on 05/20/2010 05:37 PM, the following: > I'm not sure if this has been discussed, yet but since it seems that > the resource framework will not be making it upstream, I am curious http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=127206504624556&w=2 (we are getting to the one month expiry date btw..) > what are the replacements under consideration. I am starting to see > similar issues on other platforms (msm / tegra) so more generic > (non-omap) solution might be something to consider. I know of one by Sanjeev Premi: [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=125716806431649&w=2 it should be rather trivial to adapt it to opp layer and make it work. -- Regards, Nishanth Menon