If this is possible, that's probably better to drop all these patches (including poweroff-source) from "next", in this way it will be possible to re-do things properly from scratch (with the new name). If you have a look at linux-next the property "poweroff-source" is already used by tps910 AND act8865, I don't like that (it is not used yet by dts files). I mean, I don't really want to support "vendor,system-power-controller", "system-power-controller" and "poweroff-source" from "of_has_system_power_source" and do a lot of unclean commits in order to don't break compatibility. Just keep things simple. What do you think ? 2014-10-27 18:57 GMT+01:00 Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 12:30:25PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 05:26:36PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > >> > Given that poweroff-source hasn't made it into a released kernel yet we >> > can probably just kill it off completely can't we? > >> please do, then we will never have that commit in Linus' tree to give us >> nightmares. > > Well, the commit isn't a particularly big deal (and got cross-merged > into another tree already) - if it's convenient to rebase it out we > probably should but it's also not the end of the world either so long as > it doesn't appear in a release. Worst case people adopt it based on the > list discussions and we check for two properties which also isn't that > bad. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
