On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 10:11:31AM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 12/12/2020 04:50, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > Yes - what's the reason to do so? > > I'm cleaning up the thermal core code, so questioning every old ABI. > > > The code isn't specific to ACPI, > > so being able to override ACPI tables doesn't seem to justify it. > > I agree, the code is no specific to ACPI. > > What non-ACPI architecture, without device tree or platform data would > need the 'passive' option today ?
Anything that provides a trip point that has no active notifications and doesn't provide any information that tells the kernel to poll it.
