From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Horman Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 00:22:42 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] ARM: shmobile: r8a7740/armadillo legacy prototype pm domain support Message-Id: <20140911002242.GE29858@verge.net.au> List-Id: References: <1409320217-13278-1-git-send-email-geert+renesas@glider.be> <20140909022649.GC31320@verge.net.au> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 11:48:23AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Simon, Magnus, > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 4:26 AM, Simon Horman wrote: > > I would like Magnus's opinion but mine is that the non-WIP patches > > could be queued up. At least patch 1 and 2. Possibly others if > > they don't depend (other than diff noise) on WIP patches. > > The legacy platforms are meant to be extinct in the near future, but > Armadillo-legacy already has some PM domain support, so adding a > little bit more can't hurt much, IMHO. > > Besides diff noise, there should not be any dependencies on WIP patches. > > > With the WIP patches, I am not entirely opposed to merging them > > too, so long as they move things in a good direction. And in particular > > don't break anything. > > "[PATCH 03/11] [WIP] ARM: shmobile: armadillo800eva legacy: Add > missing A3SP pm domain devices" should be OK, as this turned out to be > intended behavior. > > "[PATCH 10/11] [WIP] ARM: shmobile: r8a7740: Add A4SU pm domain > support" probably introduces a regression for USB, as the domain is now > powered down after boot-up. I haven't tried USB on Armadillo yet, though. > So don't apply this one. > > "[PATCH 11/11] [WIP] ARM: shmobile: r8a7740: Add A3SM pm domain > support" should be safe. > > I would not apply the other WIP patches that add C99-commented-out code. > These issues must be fixed for DT as well. Thanks Geert, that all sounds reasonable to me. I will confer with Magnus. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Horman Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] ARM: shmobile: r8a7740/armadillo legacy prototype pm domain support Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 09:22:42 +0900 Message-ID: <20140911002242.GE29858@verge.net.au> References: <1409320217-13278-1-git-send-email-geert+renesas@glider.be> <20140909022649.GC31320@verge.net.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from kirsty.vergenet.net ([202.4.237.240]:58880 "EHLO kirsty.vergenet.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751100AbaIKAWq (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Sep 2014 20:22:46 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Magnus Damm , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux-sh list , Linux PM list , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 11:48:23AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Simon, Magnus, > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 4:26 AM, Simon Horman wrote: > > I would like Magnus's opinion but mine is that the non-WIP patches > > could be queued up. At least patch 1 and 2. Possibly others if > > they don't depend (other than diff noise) on WIP patches. > > The legacy platforms are meant to be extinct in the near future, but > Armadillo-legacy already has some PM domain support, so adding a > little bit more can't hurt much, IMHO. > > Besides diff noise, there should not be any dependencies on WIP patches. > > > With the WIP patches, I am not entirely opposed to merging them > > too, so long as they move things in a good direction. And in particular > > don't break anything. > > "[PATCH 03/11] [WIP] ARM: shmobile: armadillo800eva legacy: Add > missing A3SP pm domain devices" should be OK, as this turned out to be > intended behavior. > > "[PATCH 10/11] [WIP] ARM: shmobile: r8a7740: Add A4SU pm domain > support" probably introduces a regression for USB, as the domain is now > powered down after boot-up. I haven't tried USB on Armadillo yet, though. > So don't apply this one. > > "[PATCH 11/11] [WIP] ARM: shmobile: r8a7740: Add A3SM pm domain > support" should be safe. > > I would not apply the other WIP patches that add C99-commented-out code. > These issues must be fixed for DT as well. Thanks Geert, that all sounds reasonable to me. I will confer with Magnus. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: horms@verge.net.au (Simon Horman) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 09:22:42 +0900 Subject: [PATCH 00/11] ARM: shmobile: r8a7740/armadillo legacy prototype pm domain support In-Reply-To: References: <1409320217-13278-1-git-send-email-geert+renesas@glider.be> <20140909022649.GC31320@verge.net.au> Message-ID: <20140911002242.GE29858@verge.net.au> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 11:48:23AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Simon, Magnus, > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 4:26 AM, Simon Horman wrote: > > I would like Magnus's opinion but mine is that the non-WIP patches > > could be queued up. At least patch 1 and 2. Possibly others if > > they don't depend (other than diff noise) on WIP patches. > > The legacy platforms are meant to be extinct in the near future, but > Armadillo-legacy already has some PM domain support, so adding a > little bit more can't hurt much, IMHO. > > Besides diff noise, there should not be any dependencies on WIP patches. > > > With the WIP patches, I am not entirely opposed to merging them > > too, so long as they move things in a good direction. And in particular > > don't break anything. > > "[PATCH 03/11] [WIP] ARM: shmobile: armadillo800eva legacy: Add > missing A3SP pm domain devices" should be OK, as this turned out to be > intended behavior. > > "[PATCH 10/11] [WIP] ARM: shmobile: r8a7740: Add A4SU pm domain > support" probably introduces a regression for USB, as the domain is now > powered down after boot-up. I haven't tried USB on Armadillo yet, though. > So don't apply this one. > > "[PATCH 11/11] [WIP] ARM: shmobile: r8a7740: Add A3SM pm domain > support" should be safe. > > I would not apply the other WIP patches that add C99-commented-out code. > These issues must be fixed for DT as well. Thanks Geert, that all sounds reasonable to me. I will confer with Magnus.