On 16/11/2017 03:47, Viresh Kumar wrote: > 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.
Instead of removing entirely the code, why not convert this to a DT based info and put the Juno values back ? -- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
