Re: [PATCH 4/5] irqchip: armada-370-xp: Allow using wakeup source

From: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@free-electrons.com>
To: Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
	Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>,
	Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>,
	Boris BREZILLON <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>,
	Lior Amsalem <alior@marvell.com>,
	Tawfik Bayouk <tawfik@marvell.com>,
	Nadav Haklai <nadavh@marvell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] irqchip: armada-370-xp: Allow using wakeup source
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 17:38:43 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <551EB403.9030607@free-electrons.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150403142922.GL24598@io.lakedaemon.net>

On 03/04/2015 16:29, Jason Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 09:17:55AM +0200, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
>> Hi Jason,
>>
>> On 03/04/2015 01:23, Jason Cooper wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 04:04:37PM +0200, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
>>>> On the Armada 370/XP SoCs, in standby mode the SoC stay powered and it
>>>> is possible to wake-up from any interrupt sources. This patch adds
>>>> flag to the MPIC irqchip driver to let linux know this.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@free-electrons.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/irqchip/irq-armada-370-xp.c | 1 +
>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>
>>> Applied to irqchip/mvebu
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Do you agree to take also the patch 3?
> 
> hmmm...
> 
>> It modifies a file in mach-mvebu (board-v7.c) but it depends on a patch
>> located in irqchip: "irqchip: gic: Add an entry point to set up irqchip flags"
> 
> Yeah, I saw that.  Do you forsee any merge conflicts with mvebu?  The reason I

There is only two patches which modify the same file, but they don't touch the
same chunk. So the only impact would be the line numbers which could not be
different. In order to be sure I've just tried to apply first this patch and then
these 2 other ones: there was no problem at all.

> ask is that it looks like I'm going to be sending directly to Linus this
> cycle.  I'd really prefer to hold off a cycle on that patch.  I'm not
> 100% certain my second PR (stacked domain/DT break) is going to get
> accepted.  Which is what this patch depends on.
> 
> thoughts?

This patch can wait if needed as this patch alone is not enough to to be able
to use standby and I am not sure at all that I the other part of the series will
be merged in 4.1.

Thanks,

Gregory

-- 
Gregory Clement, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com