From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752535AbcKCFhi (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Nov 2016 01:37:38 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:57192 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751494AbcKCFhh (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Nov 2016 01:37:37 -0400 Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 05:37:52 +0000 From: Juri Lelli To: Catalin Marinas Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, broonie@kernel.org, will.deacon@arm.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, sudeep.holla@arm.com, linux@arm.linux.org.uk, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 REPOST 0/9] CPUs capacity information for heterogeneous systems Message-ID: <20161103053752.GB16920@e106622-lin> References: <20161017154650.18779-1-juri.lelli@arm.com> <20161030142246.od5skjzegyp62hma@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161030142246.od5skjzegyp62hma@localhost> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Catalin, On 30/10/16 14:22, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 04:46:41PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > > I'm thus now assuming that everybody is OK with the patches and that they can > > be queued for 4.10 (we certainly need this plumbing at this point). Please > > speak if my assumption is wrong (and provide feedback! :). > > Otherwise I'm going to: > > > > - use Russell's patching system for patches 2 and 8 > > - ask Sudeep to pull patches 3,5,6 and 7 > > - ask Catalin/Will to pull patches 1,4 and 9 > > I'm happy to queue patches 1, 4 and 9 for 4.10 (though it might have > been easier for the whole series to go through arm-soc). > > > Do you think we might get into trouble splitting the merge process this way? > > Probably not. The only minor downside is that I have to grab a new DT > for Juno from Sudeep to test the patches. Not an issue, though. > Thanks and apologies if merging through different trees generates some confusion. I updated arm patches to address Russell's comments. I did the same for arm64. I'll reply with the updated version, so you can see if it looks good to you as well. In case it is OK, I already updated the for-arm64 branch with the new version: git://linux-arm.org/linux-jl.git upstream/default_caps_for-arm64 Best, - Juri From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Juri Lelli Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 REPOST 0/9] CPUs capacity information for heterogeneous systems Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 05:37:52 +0000 Message-ID: <20161103053752.GB16920@e106622-lin> References: <20161017154650.18779-1-juri.lelli@arm.com> <20161030142246.od5skjzegyp62hma@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161030142246.od5skjzegyp62hma@localhost> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Catalin Marinas Cc: linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, mark.rutland-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org, devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, lorenzo.pieralisi-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org, vincent.guittot-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, linux-pm-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, peterz-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org, broonie-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, will.deacon-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org, dietmar.eggemann-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org, robh+dt-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, sudeep.holla-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org, linux-lFZ/pmaqli7XmaaqVzeoHQ@public.gmane.org, morten.rasmussen-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi Catalin, On 30/10/16 14:22, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 04:46:41PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > > I'm thus now assuming that everybody is OK with the patches and that they can > > be queued for 4.10 (we certainly need this plumbing at this point). Please > > speak if my assumption is wrong (and provide feedback! :). > > Otherwise I'm going to: > > > > - use Russell's patching system for patches 2 and 8 > > - ask Sudeep to pull patches 3,5,6 and 7 > > - ask Catalin/Will to pull patches 1,4 and 9 > > I'm happy to queue patches 1, 4 and 9 for 4.10 (though it might have > been easier for the whole series to go through arm-soc). > > > Do you think we might get into trouble splitting the merge process this way? > > Probably not. The only minor downside is that I have to grab a new DT > for Juno from Sudeep to test the patches. Not an issue, though. > Thanks and apologies if merging through different trees generates some confusion. I updated arm patches to address Russell's comments. I did the same for arm64. I'll reply with the updated version, so you can see if it looks good to you as well. In case it is OK, I already updated the for-arm64 branch with the new version: git://linux-arm.org/linux-jl.git upstream/default_caps_for-arm64 Best, - Juri -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: juri.lelli@arm.com (Juri Lelli) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 05:37:52 +0000 Subject: [PATCH v7 REPOST 0/9] CPUs capacity information for heterogeneous systems In-Reply-To: <20161030142246.od5skjzegyp62hma@localhost> References: <20161017154650.18779-1-juri.lelli@arm.com> <20161030142246.od5skjzegyp62hma@localhost> Message-ID: <20161103053752.GB16920@e106622-lin> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Catalin, On 30/10/16 14:22, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 04:46:41PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > > I'm thus now assuming that everybody is OK with the patches and that they can > > be queued for 4.10 (we certainly need this plumbing at this point). Please > > speak if my assumption is wrong (and provide feedback! :). > > Otherwise I'm going to: > > > > - use Russell's patching system for patches 2 and 8 > > - ask Sudeep to pull patches 3,5,6 and 7 > > - ask Catalin/Will to pull patches 1,4 and 9 > > I'm happy to queue patches 1, 4 and 9 for 4.10 (though it might have > been easier for the whole series to go through arm-soc). > > > Do you think we might get into trouble splitting the merge process this way? > > Probably not. The only minor downside is that I have to grab a new DT > for Juno from Sudeep to test the patches. Not an issue, though. > Thanks and apologies if merging through different trees generates some confusion. I updated arm patches to address Russell's comments. I did the same for arm64. I'll reply with the updated version, so you can see if it looks good to you as well. In case it is OK, I already updated the for-arm64 branch with the new version: git://linux-arm.org/linux-jl.git upstream/default_caps_for-arm64 Best, - Juri