RE: [PATCH] thermal: imx: fix for dependency on cpu-freq

From: Anson Huang
Date: Tue Nov 20 2018 - 03:58:47 EST


Hi, Daniel

Best Regards!
Anson Huang

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Lezcano [mailto:daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 2018å11æ20æ 16:54
> To: Anson Huang <anson.huang@xxxxxxx>; rui.zhang@xxxxxxxxx;
> edubezval@xxxxxxxxx; linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] thermal: imx: fix for dependency on cpu-freq
>
> On 20/11/2018 09:47, Anson Huang wrote:
> > Hi, Daniel
> >
> > Best Regards!
> > Anson Huang
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Daniel Lezcano [mailto:daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx]
> >> Sent: 2018å11æ20æ 16:45
> >> To: Anson Huang <anson.huang@xxxxxxx>; rui.zhang@xxxxxxxxx;
> >> edubezval@xxxxxxxxx; linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> >> linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Cc: dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@xxxxxxx>
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] thermal: imx: fix for dependency on cpu-freq
> >>
> >> On 24/10/2018 08:39, Anson Huang wrote:
> >>> The thermal driver is a standalone driver for monitoring SoC
> >>> temperature by enabling thermal sensor, so it can be enabled even
> >>> when CONFIG_CPU_FREQ is NOT set. So remove the dependency with
> >> CPU_THERMAL.
> >>>
> >>> Add CONFIG_CPU_FREQ check for cpu-freq related operation in thermal
> >>> driver to make thermal driver probe successfully when
> >>> CONFIG_CPU_FREQ is NOT set.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Anson Huang <Anson.Huang@xxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>
> >> Why not simply kill this legacy code ?
> >
> > Because killing legacy code will have old dtb compatible issue, old
> > dtb will NOT have cpufreq cooling function.
>
> Yeah, I imagine that is the reason why you want to keep the legacy code but do
> you really care about old DTB based boards? Are they still updated with newer
> *upstream vanilla* kernels?

I am NOT sure if there is someone care about it, but I did receive many comments
about old dtb compatible when I sent out other patches, so is it a solid requirement
of old dtb compatible when doing upstream, or each sub-system or maintainer has
different requirement about it? Actually I am happy to just remove the legacy
code, because it makes the code more clean and easy reading. Who can make the
decision?

Anson.

>
>
> --
>
> <https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww
> .linaro.org%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Canson.huang%40nxp.com%7Cbb8cdd
> 4155fb4c02dab308d64ec5c9cd%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7
> C0%7C0%7C636783008739373537&amp;sdata=x6qHDTFYb3SNARICs15KkLL7
> %2Fpp7enYZkZJHRoJksXs%3D&amp;reserved=0> Linaro.org â Open source
> software for ARM SoCs
>
> Follow Linaro:
> <https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww
> .facebook.com%2Fpages%2FLinaro&amp;data=02%7C01%7Canson.huang%40
> nxp.com%7Cbb8cdd4155fb4c02dab308d64ec5c9cd%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa9
> 2cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C636783008739373537&amp;sdata=JJ4H9Z0
> RAY%2F1uLlcKXNQN36L0ApFIwM9%2FuPOU9UBUcI%3D&amp;reserved=0>
> Facebook |
> <https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitt
> er.com%2F%23!%2Flinaroorg&amp;data=02%7C01%7Canson.huang%40nxp.c
> om%7Cbb8cdd4155fb4c02dab308d64ec5c9cd%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd9
> 9c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C636783008739373537&amp;sdata=o0o7h8GYALt
> o6NuuI%2BAxFzx6rcr3VFg6CWwh3feGggI%3D&amp;reserved=0> Twitter |
> <https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww
> .linaro.org%2Flinaro-blog%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Canson.huang%40nxp.c
> om%7Cbb8cdd4155fb4c02dab308d64ec5c9cd%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd9
> 9c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C636783008739373537&amp;sdata=6r2baB5ZimC
> zJEkrKTvCBH98%2BBlnw0ZHiYOdG5JlimA%3D&amp;reserved=0> Blog