From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66DFBC4361B for ; Sat, 12 Dec 2020 20:09:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B6B6207B6 for ; Sat, 12 Dec 2020 20:09:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2407865AbgLLUJB (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Dec 2020 15:09:01 -0500 Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([176.126.240.207]:53748 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726472AbgLLUI4 (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Dec 2020 15:08:56 -0500 X-Greylist: delayed 58674 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Sat, 12 Dec 2020 15:08:49 EST Received: by cavan.codon.org.uk (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2C31741575; Sat, 12 Dec 2020 20:08:06 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2020 20:08:06 +0000 From: Matthew Garrett To: Daniel Lezcano Cc: rui.zhang@intel.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, amitk@kernel.org, Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH] thermal/core: Make 'forced_passive' as obsolete candidate Message-ID: <20201212200806.GA19048@codon.org.uk> References: <20201208153046.297456-1-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <20201212035012.GA11926@codon.org.uk> <20015331-955b-756f-3dce-4eb78e473704@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20015331-955b-756f-3dce-4eb78e473704@linaro.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 10:11:31AM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 12/12/2020 04:50, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > Yes - what's the reason to do so? > > I'm cleaning up the thermal core code, so questioning every old ABI. > > > The code isn't specific to ACPI, > > so being able to override ACPI tables doesn't seem to justify it. > > I agree, the code is no specific to ACPI. > > What non-ACPI architecture, without device tree or platform data would > need the 'passive' option today ? Anything that provides a trip point that has no active notifications and doesn't provide any information that tells the kernel to poll it.