"Menon, Nishanth" <nm@xxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxx> wrote: >> "Woodruff, Richard" <r-woodruff2@xxxxxx> writes: >> >>>> From: Hilman, Kevin >>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 5:17 PM >>> >>>> A basic OMAP AVS driver has been in mainline for a long time, yet we >>>> have not seen support submitted for all of these features. >>> >>> 1.5/3.5 is a feature. >> >> And I'm still waiting for it to be submitted upstream. >> >>> ABB is requirement for a production useable driver. Higher speed rated >>> OMAP4 and all OMAP5 added these to be useable. >> >> ditto >> >>> Yes this is effort. Point of mentioning is to raise awareness of need. >> >> I'm well aware of the need. >> >>> Yet to be added feature has different meaning than functional gap. >> >> And both need to be submitted upstream. > > SR 1.5: http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=129933897910785&w=2 > ABB: http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=130939399209099&w=2 > > I am not sure what you mean "need to be submitted upstream"? You're right. I should've said re-submitted and merged. Both have been submitted (and reviewed) but no follow up submissions after review, and thus they're still out of tree. > Just tired of seeing things perpetually change without considering > even how to handle features that are mandatory for SoC even with code > posted upstream to show exactly what it takes.. I'm sorry, but this is not perpetual change. This driver has been upstream in its current (admittedly feature-limited) form for a long time, the only thing changing in $SUBJECT series is the location of the driver. Why all the fuss about the missing features now? > I think you do mean merged upstream in this context. Correct. Frameworks always have limitations. The way they get extended/expanded etc. is by the submission/review/merging of support for new features/requirements. The process for that is the same as any feature in any part of the kernel. Evolution, not intelligent design[1]. All of that being said, I'm not sure why this thread was hijacked for this debate in the first place. The point of $SUBJECT series is simply to move and *existing* framework from arch/arm out to drivers. The only changes done are cleanups to make this move possible. I for one would welcome extending this framework to ensure it supports all the SoC features. I just don't want those features to be a prerequisite for this move from arch/arm to drivers. Please, let's get this moved to drivers, and then add support for the missing features. Thanks, Kevin [1] http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Kernel_Evolution _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
