From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Hilman Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] omap2+: Remove gptimer_wakeup for now Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 09:30:08 -0700 Message-ID: <87hb7bdypb.fsf@ti.com> References: <20110620091754.357.56441.stgit@kaulin> <20110620092341.357.14183.stgit@kaulin> <4DFF1558.4020509@ti.com> <20110620094846.GG23145@atomide.com> <87oc1obnbw.fsf@ti.com> <4E035835.50405@ti.com> <20110627080804.GG23145@atomide.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110627080804.GG23145@atomide.com> (Tony Lindgren's message of "Mon, 27 Jun 2011 01:08:05 -0700") List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-arm-kernel-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Tony Lindgren Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, Santosh Shilimkar , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org Tony Lindgren writes: > * Santosh Shilimkar [110623 08:09]: >> On 6/23/2011 8:35 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> >Tony Lindgren writes: >> > >> >So now, the only thing OMAP-specific is the debugfs file used to trigger >> >it. >> > >> >>Maybe Kevin can just carry it along in the PM branch for now? >> > >> >I'd prefer to keep it in mainline as this is a very important feature >> >for the PM functionality already in mainline. >> > >> I agree with Kevin and that's what have been saying from begining when >> we decided to drop this feature. The new patch from Kevin is already >> doing this in more generic way than that was before. > > To me Kevin's later patch makes more sense, but still has few issues: > > - It keeps the dependency between PM debug code and sys_timer code. > That's yet another artificial blocker for making PM code a loadable > module. We really don't want to export anything from the sys_timer code. > > - The interface for programming a wake-up timer should be Linux generic, > not omap specific. > > Further, it's a CONFIG_PM_DEBUG patch. So that code should not be > in the mainline kernel. Huh? Please clarify why PM debug code shouldn't be in mainline? Kevin