Hello Bryan, On Tue, 20 Dec 2022 at 12:34, Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 20/12/2022 10:32, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > > Mainline does not and will not (for the most part) care about > > out of tree code, so cleanups of parts like this with no users > > are wholly expected if your DT hasn't landed upstream (or has been > > stuck in review for a long long time like it is the case with > > various parts of 8939).. Keeping this old iteration is blocking > > progress, as the other similar ones (that*do* have mainline users) > > are left in place just to be backwards compatible with old DTs > > that may have been pulled from torvalds/linux by third party projects, > > like U-Boot, *BSDs or something. Trimming away this now-duplicated > > code will shrink the driver, reducing bloat for everyone that > > compiles it in and doesn't use the 8939-specific path. > > I entirely take your point on duration Konrad but, I think we can be > just a little more pragmatic and hold off on dropping working code and > land the dtsi. > > We went to the trouble of upstreaming the enabling code for the 8939, > the right thing to do, IMO is to finish off the job. I'm pretty sorry to step on your toes here. It's up to the maintainers of the platform and of the thermal subsystem. However I'd suggest getting rid of this code. Would me doing the dtsi patch for you to test on 8939 help you in any way? -- With best wishes Dmitry
