Re: [PATCH 2/4] cpuidle: big.LITTLE: enable driver only on Peach-Pit/Pi Chromebooks

From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Cc: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
	linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
	Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] cpuidle: big.LITTLE: enable driver only on Peach-Pit/Pi Chromebooks
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 10:26:35 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200824082635.GA15030@kozik-lap> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f46e7041-f75e-8d97-e967-2ac458aaaf2e@linaro.org>

On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 10:15:42AM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 17/08/2020 17:39, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:05:46PM +0200, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> >>
> >> On 6/16/20 10:12 AM, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> >>> This driver always worked properly only on the Exynos 5420/5800 based
> >>> Chromebooks (Peach-Pit/Pi), so change the required compatible string to
> >>> the 'google,peach', to avoid enabling it on the other Exynos 542x/5800
> >>> boards, which hangs in such case. The main difference between Peach-Pit/Pi
> >>> and other Exynos 542x/5800 boards is the firmware - Peach platform doesn't
> >>> use secure firmware at all.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
> > 
> > This patch waited on list for almost two months and was not picked up.
> > Therefore I'll take it for v5.10.
> 
> It happens some patches can fall into the cracks, especially when we are
> fully busy with a peak of work. Also, we have filters in our mailers
> which are not perfect. A gentle ping is enough to ask to pay attention
> to the series.
> 
> I can understand that is annoying, but preemptively pick the patch is
> not adequate.

I apologize if my message was harsh or sounded rude. That was not my
intention.

I understand that patches soometimes got missed. That's life. This patch
here is quite simple, non-intrusive, got independent ack. Also in the
past SoC-specific drivers were sometimes going through SoC tree (so in
this case - mine for Samsung).  Patch also blocks the dependant DT
change (for entire cycle). Therefore I guessed that it won't be a
problem and it is just simpler to apply it.

If it is an issue, I can drop it and rebase my branch.

Best regards,
Krzysztof