On Thursday, September 8, 2016 11:20:35 AM CEST Will Deacon wrote: > Hi Arnd, > > On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 09:33:38AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Thursday, September 1, 2016 12:51:09 PM CEST Leo Yan wrote: > > > Enable common modules for power management; one is to enable > > > CPUFREQ_DT driver; the driver is used by many platforms by passing OPP > > > table from device tree. > > > > > > Also enables thermal related drivers. Firstly we need enable > > > configuration CPU_THERMAL for CPU cooling device driver, this will bind > > > thermal zone with CPU cooling device; and enable 'power allocator' > > > thermal governor. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Leo Yan <leo....@linaro.org> > > > > > > > Looks good, > > > > Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> > > > > Catalin and Will: I never know who should merge this kind of patch > > as we have a number of other arm64 defconfig patches going through > > arm-soc, but this patch is not really platform specific. > > > > Do you want to pick it up in the arm64 tree or should we take > > this and others patches like it in general? > > I'm perfectly happy with you taking this, but thanks for asking the > question. I think that, outside of the architectural bits, it makes > sense for arm-soc to manage config options that are requested by the > submaintainers. It also helps reduce defconfig churn. I typically wait > until -rc1 before making any .config changes, unless they're urgent > (e.g. systemd suddenly starts needing some options enabled in order to > boot), so if you queue this for the merge window then we should be good.
Ok, thanks for the detailed answer. I've applied the patch to our next/arm64 branch now. Arnd