From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754066AbdA3SUL (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jan 2017 13:20:11 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:49366 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753600AbdA3SUJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jan 2017 13:20:09 -0500 Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 18:21:00 +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, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, 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 0/7] Fix issues and factorize arm/arm64 capacity information code Message-ID: <20170130182100.GE13332@e106622-lin> References: <20170119143757.14537-1-juri.lelli@arm.com> <20170130122901.GA25681@e106622-lin> <20170130175138.GA26660@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170130175138.GA26660@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> 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 30/01/17 17:51, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:29:01PM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote: > > I'd need more advice on this set, especially on how and if patch 6 could fly. > > Since you got some comments and said that you are going to fix them in > the next version, I guess people are waiting for you to post a new > series. > While this is true for Dietmar's and part of Russell's comments, I was still waiting to understand where people think is better to move the externs (as Russell pointed out), though, and if the whole idea could fly. I could certainly come up with a proposal on this point, but I didn't simply want to spam people's mailboxes with a v2 (addressing relatively minor points, IMHO) if v1 was already completely off. Apologies if that wasn't clear from my replies. Maybe you are saying that no comments are a good sign after all. :) Best, - Juri