All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
To: Daniel Scally <djrscally@gmail.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-i2c <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>,
	Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:ACPI COMPONENT ARCHITECTURE (ACPICA)"
	<devel@acpica.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
	andy@kernel.org,
	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>,
	Wolfram Sang <wsa@kernel.org>, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
	Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
	Mark Gross <mgross@linux.intel.com>,
	Robert Moore <robert.moore@intel.com>,
	Erik Kaneda <erik.kaneda@intel.com>,
	Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
	Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>,
	Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] acpi: utils: Add function to fetch dependent acpi_devices
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2021 15:02:39 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0j7U=e+GHLqpivqfvOKCyCZWm4VK3___4tTfcxD==vcHA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d9ec0439-4323-51a2-70e7-c258fe63cd86@gmail.com>

On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 10:58 AM Daniel Scally <djrscally@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rafael
>
> On 21/01/2021 21:06, Daniel Scally wrote:
> >
> > On 21/01/2021 18:08, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 5:34 PM Daniel Scally <djrscally@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 21/01/2021 14:39, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 1:04 PM Daniel Scally <djrscally@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On 21/01/2021 11:58, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 10:47 AM Daniel Scally <djrscally@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi Rafael
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 19/01/2021 13:15, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 9:51 PM Daniel Scally <djrscally@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 18/01/2021 16:14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 1:37 AM Daniel Scally <djrscally@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> In some ACPI tables we encounter, devices use the _DEP method to assert
> >>>>>>>>>>> a dependence on other ACPI devices as opposed to the OpRegions that the
> >>>>>>>>>>> specification intends. We need to be able to find those devices "from"
> >>>>>>>>>>> the dependee, so add a function to parse all ACPI Devices and check if
> >>>>>>>>>>> the include the handle of the dependee device in their _DEP buffer.
> >>>>>>>>>> What exactly do you need this for?
> >>>>>>>>> So, in our DSDT we have devices with _HID INT3472, plus sensors which
> >>>>>>>>> refer to those INT3472's in their _DEP method. The driver binds to the
> >>>>>>>>> INT3472 device, we need to find the sensors dependent on them.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Well, this is an interesting concept. :-)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Why does _DEP need to be used for that?  Isn't there any other way to
> >>>>>>>> look up the dependent sensors?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Would it be practical to look up the suppliers in acpi_dep_list instead?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Note that supplier drivers may remove entries from there, but does
> >>>>>>>>>> that matter for your use case?
> >>>>>>>>> Ah - that may work, yes. Thank you, let me test that.
> >>>>>>>> Even if that doesn't work right away, but it can be made work, I would
> >>>>>>>> very much prefer that to the driver parsing _DEP for every device in
> >>>>>>>> the namespace by itself.
> >>>>>>> This does work; do you prefer it in scan.c, or in utils.c (in which case
> >>>>>>> with acpi_dep_list declared as external var in internal.h)?
> >>>>>> Let's put it in scan.c for now, because there is the lock protecting
> >>>>>> the list in there too.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> How do you want to implement this?  Something like "walk the list and
> >>>>>> run a callback for the matching entries" or do you have something else
> >>>>>> in mind?
> >>>>> Something like this (though with a mutex_lock()). It could be simplified
> >>>>> by dropping the prev stuff, but we have seen INT3472 devices with
> >>>>> multiple sensors declaring themselves dependent on the same device
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> struct acpi_device *
> >>>>> acpi_dev_get_next_dependent_dev(struct acpi_device *supplier,
> >>>>>                 struct acpi_device *prev)
> >>>>> {
> >>>>>     struct acpi_dep_data *dep;
> >>>>>     struct acpi_device *adev;
> >>>>>     int ret;
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     if (!supplier)
> >>>>>         return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     if (prev) {
> >>>>>         /*
> >>>>>          * We need to find the previous device in the list, so we know
> >>>>>          * where to start iterating from.
> >>>>>          */
> >>>>>         list_for_each_entry(dep, &acpi_dep_list, node)
> >>>>>             if (dep->consumer == prev->handle &&
> >>>>>                 dep->supplier == supplier->handle)
> >>>>>                 break;
> >>>>>
> >>>>>         dep = list_next_entry(dep, node);
> >>>>>     } else {
> >>>>>         dep = list_first_entry(&acpi_dep_list, struct acpi_dep_data,
> >>>>>                        node);
> >>>>>     }
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     list_for_each_entry_from(dep, &acpi_dep_list, node) {
> >>>>>         if (dep->supplier == supplier->handle) {
> >>>>>             ret = acpi_bus_get_device(dep->consumer, &adev);
> >>>>>             if (ret)
> >>>>>                 return ERR_PTR(ret);
> >>>>>
> >>>>>             return adev;
> >>>>>         }
> >>>>>     }
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     return NULL;
> >>>>> }
> >>>> That would work I think, but would it be practical to modify
> >>>> acpi_walk_dep_device_list() so that it runs a callback for every
> >>>> consumer found instead of or in addition to the "delete from the list
> >>>> and free the entry" operation?
> >>>
> >>> I think that this would work fine, if that's the way you want to go.
> >>> We'd just need to move everything inside the if (dep->supplier ==
> >>> handle) block to a new callback, and for my purposes I think also add a
> >>> way to stop parsing the list from the callback (so like have the
> >>> callbacks return int and stop parsing on a non-zero return). Do you want
> >>> to expose that ability to pass a callback outside of ACPI?
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >>> Or just export helpers to call each of the callbacks (one to fetch the next
> >>> dependent device, one to decrement the unmet dependencies counter)
> >> If you can run a callback for every matching entry, you don't really
> >> need to have a callback to return the next matching entry.  You can do
> >> stuff for all of them in one go
> >
> > Well it my case it's more to return a pointer to the dep->consumer's
> > acpi_device for a matching entry, so my idea was where there's multiple
> > dependents you could use this as an iterator...but it could just be
> > extended to that if needed later; I don't actually need to do it right now.
> >
> >
> >> note that it probably is not a good
> >> idea to run the callback under the lock, so the for loop currently in
> >> there is not really suitable for that
> >
> > No problem;  I'll tweak that then
>
> Slightly walking back my "No problem" here; as I understand this there's
> kinda two options:
>
> 1. Walk over the (locked) list, when a match is found unlock, run the
> callback and re-lock.

That's what I was thinking about.

> The problem with that idea is unless I'm mistaken there's no guarantee
> that the .next pointer is still valid then (even using the *_safe()
> methods) because either the next or the next + 1 entry could have been
> removed whilst the list was unlocked and the callback was being ran, so
> this seems a little unsafe.

This can be addressed by rotating the list while walking it, but that
becomes problematic if there are concurrent walkers.

OK, I guess running the callback under the lock is not really a big
deal (and for the deletion case this is actually necessary), so let's
do that.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael at kernel.org>
To: devel@acpica.org
Subject: [Devel] Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] acpi: utils: Add function to fetch dependent acpi_devices
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2021 15:02:39 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0j7U=e+GHLqpivqfvOKCyCZWm4VK3___4tTfcxD==vcHA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: d9ec0439-4323-51a2-70e7-c258fe63cd86@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6871 bytes --]

On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 10:58 AM Daniel Scally <djrscally(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rafael
>
> On 21/01/2021 21:06, Daniel Scally wrote:
> >
> > On 21/01/2021 18:08, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 5:34 PM Daniel Scally <djrscally(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 21/01/2021 14:39, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 1:04 PM Daniel Scally <djrscally(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On 21/01/2021 11:58, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 10:47 AM Daniel Scally <djrscally(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi Rafael
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 19/01/2021 13:15, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 9:51 PM Daniel Scally <djrscally(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 18/01/2021 16:14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 1:37 AM Daniel Scally <djrscally(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> In some ACPI tables we encounter, devices use the _DEP method to assert
> >>>>>>>>>>> a dependence on other ACPI devices as opposed to the OpRegions that the
> >>>>>>>>>>> specification intends. We need to be able to find those devices "from"
> >>>>>>>>>>> the dependee, so add a function to parse all ACPI Devices and check if
> >>>>>>>>>>> the include the handle of the dependee device in their _DEP buffer.
> >>>>>>>>>> What exactly do you need this for?
> >>>>>>>>> So, in our DSDT we have devices with _HID INT3472, plus sensors which
> >>>>>>>>> refer to those INT3472's in their _DEP method. The driver binds to the
> >>>>>>>>> INT3472 device, we need to find the sensors dependent on them.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Well, this is an interesting concept. :-)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Why does _DEP need to be used for that?  Isn't there any other way to
> >>>>>>>> look up the dependent sensors?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Would it be practical to look up the suppliers in acpi_dep_list instead?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Note that supplier drivers may remove entries from there, but does
> >>>>>>>>>> that matter for your use case?
> >>>>>>>>> Ah - that may work, yes. Thank you, let me test that.
> >>>>>>>> Even if that doesn't work right away, but it can be made work, I would
> >>>>>>>> very much prefer that to the driver parsing _DEP for every device in
> >>>>>>>> the namespace by itself.
> >>>>>>> This does work; do you prefer it in scan.c, or in utils.c (in which case
> >>>>>>> with acpi_dep_list declared as external var in internal.h)?
> >>>>>> Let's put it in scan.c for now, because there is the lock protecting
> >>>>>> the list in there too.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> How do you want to implement this?  Something like "walk the list and
> >>>>>> run a callback for the matching entries" or do you have something else
> >>>>>> in mind?
> >>>>> Something like this (though with a mutex_lock()). It could be simplified
> >>>>> by dropping the prev stuff, but we have seen INT3472 devices with
> >>>>> multiple sensors declaring themselves dependent on the same device
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> struct acpi_device *
> >>>>> acpi_dev_get_next_dependent_dev(struct acpi_device *supplier,
> >>>>>                 struct acpi_device *prev)
> >>>>> {
> >>>>>     struct acpi_dep_data *dep;
> >>>>>     struct acpi_device *adev;
> >>>>>     int ret;
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     if (!supplier)
> >>>>>         return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     if (prev) {
> >>>>>         /*
> >>>>>          * We need to find the previous device in the list, so we know
> >>>>>          * where to start iterating from.
> >>>>>          */
> >>>>>         list_for_each_entry(dep, &acpi_dep_list, node)
> >>>>>             if (dep->consumer == prev->handle &&
> >>>>>                 dep->supplier == supplier->handle)
> >>>>>                 break;
> >>>>>
> >>>>>         dep = list_next_entry(dep, node);
> >>>>>     } else {
> >>>>>         dep = list_first_entry(&acpi_dep_list, struct acpi_dep_data,
> >>>>>                        node);
> >>>>>     }
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     list_for_each_entry_from(dep, &acpi_dep_list, node) {
> >>>>>         if (dep->supplier == supplier->handle) {
> >>>>>             ret = acpi_bus_get_device(dep->consumer, &adev);
> >>>>>             if (ret)
> >>>>>                 return ERR_PTR(ret);
> >>>>>
> >>>>>             return adev;
> >>>>>         }
> >>>>>     }
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     return NULL;
> >>>>> }
> >>>> That would work I think, but would it be practical to modify
> >>>> acpi_walk_dep_device_list() so that it runs a callback for every
> >>>> consumer found instead of or in addition to the "delete from the list
> >>>> and free the entry" operation?
> >>>
> >>> I think that this would work fine, if that's the way you want to go.
> >>> We'd just need to move everything inside the if (dep->supplier ==
> >>> handle) block to a new callback, and for my purposes I think also add a
> >>> way to stop parsing the list from the callback (so like have the
> >>> callbacks return int and stop parsing on a non-zero return). Do you want
> >>> to expose that ability to pass a callback outside of ACPI?
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >>> Or just export helpers to call each of the callbacks (one to fetch the next
> >>> dependent device, one to decrement the unmet dependencies counter)
> >> If you can run a callback for every matching entry, you don't really
> >> need to have a callback to return the next matching entry.  You can do
> >> stuff for all of them in one go
> >
> > Well it my case it's more to return a pointer to the dep->consumer's
> > acpi_device for a matching entry, so my idea was where there's multiple
> > dependents you could use this as an iterator...but it could just be
> > extended to that if needed later; I don't actually need to do it right now.
> >
> >
> >> note that it probably is not a good
> >> idea to run the callback under the lock, so the for loop currently in
> >> there is not really suitable for that
> >
> > No problem;  I'll tweak that then
>
> Slightly walking back my "No problem" here; as I understand this there's
> kinda two options:
>
> 1. Walk over the (locked) list, when a match is found unlock, run the
> callback and re-lock.

That's what I was thinking about.

> The problem with that idea is unless I'm mistaken there's no guarantee
> that the .next pointer is still valid then (even using the *_safe()
> methods) because either the next or the next + 1 entry could have been
> removed whilst the list was unlocked and the callback was being ran, so
> this seems a little unsafe.

This can be addressed by rotating the list while walking it, but that
becomes problematic if there are concurrent walkers.

OK, I guess running the callback under the lock is not really a big
deal (and for the deletion case this is actually necessary), so let's
do that.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-02-02 18:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 107+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-01-18  0:34 [PATCH v2 0/7] Introduce intel_skl_int3472 driver Daniel Scally
2021-01-18  0:34 ` [PATCH v2 1/7] acpi: utils: move acpi_lpss_dep() to utils Daniel Scally
2021-01-18  7:24   ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-01-18  8:31     ` Daniel Scally
2021-01-18 12:29     ` Andy Shevchenko
2021-01-18 12:35       ` Daniel Scally
2021-01-18 12:28   ` Andy Shevchenko
2021-01-18 16:06     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-01-18 16:06       ` [Devel] " Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-01-18 16:42       ` Andy Shevchenko
2021-01-18  0:34 ` [PATCH v2 2/7] acpi: utils: Add function to fetch dependent acpi_devices Daniel Scally
2021-01-18  7:34   ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-01-18  8:37     ` Daniel Scally
2021-01-18 12:33   ` Andy Shevchenko
2021-01-18 13:37     ` Daniel Scally
2021-01-18 16:14   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-01-18 16:14     ` [Devel] " Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-01-18 20:51     ` Daniel Scally
2021-01-19 13:15       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-01-19 13:15         ` [Devel] " Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-01-19 13:28         ` Daniel Scally
2021-01-21  9:47         ` Daniel Scally
2021-01-21 11:58           ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-01-21 11:58             ` [Devel] " Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-01-21 12:04             ` Daniel Scally
2021-01-21 14:39               ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-01-21 14:39                 ` [Devel] " Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-01-21 16:34                 ` Daniel Scally
2021-01-21 18:08                   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-01-21 18:08                     ` [Devel] " Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-01-21 21:06                     ` Daniel Scally
2021-02-02  9:58                       ` Daniel Scally
2021-02-02 11:27                         ` Andy Shevchenko
2021-02-02 14:02                         ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2021-02-02 14:02                           ` [Devel] " Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-01-18  0:34 ` [PATCH v2 3/7] i2c: i2c-core-base: Use format macro in i2c_dev_set_name() Daniel Scally
2021-01-18  7:28   ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-01-18 12:41     ` Andy Shevchenko
2021-01-18  9:41   ` Sakari Ailus
2021-01-18  9:42     ` Sakari Ailus
2021-01-18  9:48     ` Wolfram Sang
2021-01-18 12:39   ` Andy Shevchenko
2021-01-18  0:34 ` [PATCH v2 4/7] i2c: i2c-core-acpi: Add i2c_acpi_dev_name() Daniel Scally
2021-01-18  9:18   ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-01-18 13:41     ` Andy Shevchenko
2021-01-19 13:19     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-01-19 13:19       ` [Devel] " Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-01-28  9:00       ` Wolfram Sang
2021-01-28  9:15         ` Daniel Scally
2021-01-28  9:17           ` Wolfram Sang
2021-01-28  9:22             ` Daniel Scally
2021-01-18 13:39   ` Andy Shevchenko
2021-01-18 18:43     ` Joe Perches
2021-01-18 18:56       ` Andy Shevchenko
2021-01-18 19:00         ` Joe Perches
2021-01-18 19:01         ` Andy Shevchenko
2021-01-18  0:34 ` [PATCH v2 5/7] gpio: gpiolib-acpi: Export acpi_get_gpiod() Daniel Scally
2021-01-18  7:37   ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-01-18 13:45   ` Andy Shevchenko
2021-01-18 13:46     ` Andy Shevchenko
2021-01-18 21:32     ` Daniel Scally
2021-01-18  0:34 ` [PATCH v2 6/7] platform: x86: Add intel_skl_int3472 driver Daniel Scally
2021-01-18  9:15   ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-01-18 14:46     ` Andy Shevchenko
2021-01-18 21:19       ` Daniel Scally
2021-01-19  0:11         ` Daniel Scally
2021-01-19  6:21           ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-01-19  9:35             ` Andy Shevchenko
2021-01-19 16:49               ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-01-19  9:33           ` Andy Shevchenko
2021-01-19  9:34             ` Daniel Scally
2021-01-19 16:36             ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-01-19 17:43               ` Andy Shevchenko
2021-01-20  4:18                 ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-01-20 11:44                   ` Andy Shevchenko
2021-01-21 21:08                     ` Daniel Scally
2021-01-19  9:24         ` Andy Shevchenko
2021-01-19 10:40           ` Daniel Scally
2021-01-19 11:08             ` Andy Shevchenko
2021-01-19 16:48               ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-01-19 17:51                 ` Andy Shevchenko
2021-01-20  4:21                   ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-01-20 12:57                     ` Andy Shevchenko
2021-01-21  0:18                       ` Daniel Scally
2021-02-07 11:00                         ` Daniel Scally
2021-02-07 11:56                           ` Andy Shevchenko
2021-02-07 11:56                             ` [Devel] " Andy Shevchenko
2021-01-18 20:46     ` Daniel Scally
2021-01-19  6:19       ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-01-19  8:43         ` Daniel Scally
2021-01-19 16:33           ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-01-18 11:12   ` Barnabás Pőcze
2021-01-18 13:51     ` andriy.shevchenko
2021-01-18 14:51       ` Barnabás Pőcze
2021-01-18 15:23         ` andriy.shevchenko
2021-01-18 15:32           ` Hans de Goede
2021-01-18 15:48             ` andriy.shevchenko
2021-01-18 16:00               ` Daniel Scally
2021-01-18 16:03                 ` Hans de Goede
2021-01-18 17:05             ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-01-19 10:56   ` Kieran Bingham
2021-01-19 11:11     ` Andy Shevchenko
2021-01-19 11:12       ` Daniel Scally
2021-01-18  0:34 ` [PATCH v2 7/7] mfd: Remove tps68470 MFD driver Daniel Scally
2021-01-18  7:42   ` Laurent Pinchart
2021-01-18 13:53   ` Andy Shevchenko
2021-01-18 20:07     ` Joe Perches

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAJZ5v0j7U=e+GHLqpivqfvOKCyCZWm4VK3___4tTfcxD==vcHA@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=andy@kernel.org \
    --cc=bgolaszewski@baylibre.com \
    --cc=devel@acpica.org \
    --cc=djrscally@gmail.com \
    --cc=erik.kaneda@intel.com \
    --cc=hdegoede@redhat.com \
    --cc=kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com \
    --cc=laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com \
    --cc=lee.jones@linaro.org \
    --cc=lenb@kernel.org \
    --cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgross@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=robert.moore@intel.com \
    --cc=sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=wsa@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.