From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eduardo Valentin Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] cpu_cooling: Drop static-power related stuff Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 10:20:49 -0800 Message-ID: <20171115182047.GA4831@localhost.localdomain> References: <761f7963-8b6d-b002-5404-a9ad0acf84d6@linaro.org> <20171115154311.GA3005@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-pg0-f65.google.com ([74.125.83.65]:46569 "EHLO mail-pg0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757707AbdKOSUw (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Nov 2017 13:20:52 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Daniel Lezcano , Viresh Kumar , Rafael Wysocki , Amit Daniel Kachhap , Javi Merino , Zhang Rui , Steven Rostedt , Ingo Molnar , Linux PM , Vincent Guittot , lukasz.luba@arm.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List , Javi Merino , Punit Agrawal 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 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 > >> > Cc: Punit Agrawal > >> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar > >> > --- > >> > >> 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