From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753544AbbC1Ovq (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Mar 2015 10:51:46 -0400 Received: from mail-wg0-f45.google.com ([74.125.82.45]:35349 "EHLO mail-wg0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752331AbbC1OvG (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Mar 2015 10:51:06 -0400 From: Grant Likely Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 00/21] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 To: Will Deacon , "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi , "guohanjun@huawei.com" , "hanjun.guo@linaro.org" , Catalin Marinas , Olof Johansson , Arnd Bergmann , Mark Rutland , "graeme.gregory@linaro.org" , Sudeep Holla , "jcm@redhat.com" , Marc Zyngier , Mark Brown , Robert Richter , Timur Tabi , Ashwin Chaugule , "suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org" In-Reply-To: <20150325113839.GD24636@arm.com> References: <1426077587-1561-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <20150324220253.9595AC407F8@trevor.secretlab.ca> <20150325112410.GA24636@arm.com> <2694196.2XPpkm7uxF@vostro.rjw.lan> <20150325113839.GD24636@arm.com> Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 12:34:09 +0000 Message-Id: <20150328123409.95225C4079E@trevor.secretlab.ca> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 11:38:43 +0000 , Will Deacon wrote: > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:54:25AM +0000, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 11:24:11 AM Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:02:53PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote: > > > > On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 19:39:27 +0000 , Will Deacon > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:17:27AM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > > > > > Not only that, Sudeep has a patch to consolidate DT and ACPI SMP code, > > > > > > I am working on it, I do not think it should be a blocking point, patch > > > > > > coming asap on top of your series. > > > > > > > > > > Well, I don't really want to merge the series without those patches so I > > > > > do think it blocks the code from getting into mainline. > > > > > > > > Really? It's a pretty minor duplication problem and it's been identified > > > > as something requiring refactoring to both the ACPI and DT code. It > > > > isn't at all dangerous. Why is this a blocking point? > > > > > > Because I don't really see a valid excuse not to get this right first time > > > around. Lorenzo already has patches on top, so we just need a co-ordinated > > > review effort. > > > > > > I wouldn't accept another patch series that needed minor rework (which by > > > its very nature is easily addressed), so why should ACPI be treated any > > > differently? > > > > Not ACPI, but this particular patchset I think. The problem is that it has > > already been reviewed and ACKed by multiple people and it would be a shame > > to require all of those people to do their reviews once again because of > > that minor rework (which arguably can be done on top of the patchset just > > fine). > > > > Of course, if the minor rework in question would not involve the need to > > review things once again, then I agree that it'd be better to do it upfront, > > but otherwise there's a good reason not to. > > Aha, I think this is just a misunderstanding -- I'm certainly not suggesting > that Hanjun rework the current set! What I *am* asking for is that they go > into mainline with Lorenzo's patches on top, which means that his series [1] > needs some review (and I plan to look at it later today). Okay, thanks for the clarification. g.