From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Walleij Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 11/13] pinctrl: samsung: Move retention control from mach-exynos to the pinctrl driver Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:46:25 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1484833733-16082-1-git-send-email-m.szyprowski@samsung.com> <1484833733-16082-12-git-send-email-m.szyprowski@samsung.com> <2d9ad2d4-c2f8-ef6b-2504-1337db0da178@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <2d9ad2d4-c2f8-ef6b-2504-1337db0da178@samsung.com> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Marek Szyprowski Cc: "arm@kernel.org" , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , linux-samsung-soc , Sylwester Nawrocki , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Tomasz Figa , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Marek Szyprowski wrote: > On 2017-01-26 10:10, Linus Walleij wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Marek Szyprowski >> wrote: >>> >>> This patch moves pad retention control from PMU driver to Exynos pin >>> controller driver. This helps to avoid possible ordering and logical >>> dependencies between machine, PMU and pin control code. Till now it >>> worked fine only because sys_ops for PMU and pin controller were called >>> in registration order. >>> This is also a preparation for adding new features to Exynos pin >>> controller driver, like runtime power management and suspending >>> individual pin controllers, which might be a part of some power domain. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Marek Szyprowski >>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski >>> Acked-by: Tomasz Figa >>> --- >>> arch/arm/mach-exynos/suspend.c | 64 -------------- >>> drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-exynos.c | 145 >>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> This makes all kind of sense, but I would ideally like an ACK >> from the ARM SoC maintainer(s): Arnd, Olof, are you OK with >> this? > > > Isn't enough to have Krzysztof's (Exynos SoC maintainer) 'reviewed-by' tag? > I assume that 'reviewed-by' also includes 'acked-by'. If the SoC maintainers are too stressed to answer in reasonable time or I just get randomly bored of waiting yes, I usually apply it anyway. Just want to give them a heads-up essentially. Yours, Linus Walleij From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linus.walleij@linaro.org (Linus Walleij) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 10:46:25 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v3 11/13] pinctrl: samsung: Move retention control from mach-exynos to the pinctrl driver In-Reply-To: <2d9ad2d4-c2f8-ef6b-2504-1337db0da178@samsung.com> References: <1484833733-16082-1-git-send-email-m.szyprowski@samsung.com> <1484833733-16082-12-git-send-email-m.szyprowski@samsung.com> <2d9ad2d4-c2f8-ef6b-2504-1337db0da178@samsung.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Marek Szyprowski wrote: > On 2017-01-26 10:10, Linus Walleij wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Marek Szyprowski >> wrote: >>> >>> This patch moves pad retention control from PMU driver to Exynos pin >>> controller driver. This helps to avoid possible ordering and logical >>> dependencies between machine, PMU and pin control code. Till now it >>> worked fine only because sys_ops for PMU and pin controller were called >>> in registration order. >>> This is also a preparation for adding new features to Exynos pin >>> controller driver, like runtime power management and suspending >>> individual pin controllers, which might be a part of some power domain. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Marek Szyprowski >>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski >>> Acked-by: Tomasz Figa >>> --- >>> arch/arm/mach-exynos/suspend.c | 64 -------------- >>> drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-exynos.c | 145 >>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> This makes all kind of sense, but I would ideally like an ACK >> from the ARM SoC maintainer(s): Arnd, Olof, are you OK with >> this? > > > Isn't enough to have Krzysztof's (Exynos SoC maintainer) 'reviewed-by' tag? > I assume that 'reviewed-by' also includes 'acked-by'. If the SoC maintainers are too stressed to answer in reasonable time or I just get randomly bored of waiting yes, I usually apply it anyway. Just want to give them a heads-up essentially. Yours, Linus Walleij