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

From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.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 11:14:56 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6ec5895f-2548-c059-ea9d-d34536eb0f66@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200824082635.GA15030@kozik-lap>

On 24/08/2020 10:26, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 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.

No worries.

> 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.

It is fine if you can add my ack.

Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>

Thanks

  -- Daniel

-- 
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog