From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] PCI, ACPI, x86: Reserve fw allocated resource for hot-add root bus Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:07:19 +0100 Message-ID: <18607840.Is41JcgqAR@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <20121030040237.GA10472@google.com> <5274779.gJQ3WSr6QB@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from hydra.sisk.pl ([212.160.235.94]:36745 "EHLO hydra.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753491Ab3AJNBh (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jan 2013 08:01:37 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: Yinghai Lu , Len Brown , Taku Izumi , Jiang Liu , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, David Howells , Michal Simek , Koichi Yasutake , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras On Wednesday, January 09, 2013 05:34:32 PM Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Wednesday, January 09, 2013 11:01:39 AM Yinghai Lu wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > >> >> the reason why we need to change those codes for x86, we want to make it support > >> >> pci root bus hotplug. So it would be reasonable for us to align other > >> >> platform to x86 > >> >> changes after pci root bus hotplug change is completely done. > >> > > >> > OK, I opened https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52531 as a > >> > way to keep track of this consistency issue and merged > >> > pci/yinghai-survey-resources to my -next branch. > >> > >> Thanks a lot. will send other pci root bus hotplug out. > >> > >> question: now Rafael's tree has acpi-scan branch and it touches pci-root.c. > >> > >> so is it ok for me to base patches on your pci/next and his pm/acpi-scan? > >> how? > >> can you two have some arrangement like you pulling Rafael's branch? > > > > My acpi-scan branch is not going to be rebased going forward, so it can be > > pulled from safely if that helps. > > I'm happy to do that, but it is outside the scope of my limited git > experience. My guess is that I should do this (doing the pull into a > branch which I later merge into my -next branch): > > $ git checkout -b pci/yinghai-survey-resources+acpi-scan > pci/yinghai-survey-resources > $ git pull --no-ff --log > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git > acpi-scan > $ vi drivers/acpi/pci_root.c # resolve conflicts > $ git add drivers/acpi/pci_root.c > $ git commit > > $ git checkout next > $ git merge --no-ff --log pci/yinghai-survey-resources+acpi-scan > > Is that reasonable? Yes, it looks reasonable. > This won't cause issues when both Rafael and I ask Linus to pull from our > trees later? No, it won't, as long as I don't rebase the original acpi-scan branch (which I'm not going to do) and you don't rebase your pci/yinghai-survey-resources+acpi-scan branch going forward. The pull makes your tree contain the same commits (i.e. commit IDs along with the data) that are in my acpi-scan branch, so when Linus merges them together, git will notice that the commits are the same. Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.