From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bastian Stender Subject: Re: [PATCH] thermal: imx: remove cooling device Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 10:05:57 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20171114134829.1354-1-bst@pengutronix.de> <20171115045626.GF3257@vireshk-i7> <20171115050032.GH3257@vireshk-i7> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from metis.ext.4.pengutronix.de ([92.198.50.35]:49479 "EHLO metis.ext.4.pengutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751189AbdKOJF6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Nov 2017 04:05:58 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20171115050032.GH3257@vireshk-i7> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Viresh Kumar Cc: shawnguo@kernel.org, Eduardo Valentin , Zhang Rui , kernel@pengutronix.de, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 11/15/2017 06:00 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 15-11-17, 10:26, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> + Shawn >> >> On 14-11-17, 14:48, Bastian Stender wrote: >>> The cooling device should not be part of the i.MX thermal code but >>> rather in the i.MX cpufreq driver. So remove it here. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Bastian Stender >> >> Shouldn't the two patches you sent be part of a series? What if one gets applied >> before the other? For example if the cpufreq patch gets applied before this one, >> then the kernel would break somewhere as two drivers would be adding the >> cpu-cooling device :) > > Actually, we may really want to have a single patch for this. So I would suggest > that we merge both the patches. Okay, I will send a merged v2. Regards, Bastian -- Pengutronix e.K. Industrial Linux Solutions http://www.pengutronix.de/ Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686