On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 08:33:39AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 05/12/2022 03:34, Jung Daehwan wrote: > > >>> Am I missing something here? > >> > >> Because it is not a driver for Exynos... it's a driver for wakelocks for > >> their specific Android use-cases which the manufacturer ships for their > >> Android devices. Due to Google GKI, they try to squeeze into upstream. > >> But this is huge misconception what should go to upstream and Samsung > >> does not want to keep discussing. They just send random patches and > >> disappear... > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Krzysztof > >> > >> > > > > No. It's driver for Exynos. Currently It only has wakelocks but I will > > submit one by one. Please think as the first patch of exynos not > > squeezed. > > That's not how upstream kernel development works... Your code has > nothing for Exynos. It's Android driver, not Exynos. If you say there is > something for Exynos it must be visible here. Wakelocks are not relevant > to Exynos, so after dropping them there would be empty stub in upstream > kernel which obviously cannot be accepted. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof > > Well, Exynos only uses wakelocks when I see mainline because it seems no other driver use it. That's why I thought it could be a exynos specific. Do you agree that if I put wakelocks into xhci platform driver? Best Regards, Jung Daehwan
