From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S966201AbdADJCt (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jan 2017 04:02:49 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:46112 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S966181AbdADJCq (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jan 2017 04:02:46 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 06/14] irqchip: gicv3-its: platform-msi: refactor its_pmsi_init() to prepare for ACPI To: Hanjun Guo , Tomasz Nowicki , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Lorenzo Pieralisi References: <1483363905-2806-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <1483363905-2806-7-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <8cdc4bfa-18a3-b9f6-aaba-0efe1f75fb40@semihalf.com> <601cbdf2-823d-8bde-bbd9-fcc6a1c67f2c@linaro.org> <254387f0-1f63-4c83-ef90-570ef072cddf@linaro.org> Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxarm@huawei.com, Thomas Gleixner , Greg KH , Ma Jun , Kefeng Wang , Agustin Vega-Frias , Sinan Kaya , charles.garcia-tobin@arm.com, huxinwei@huawei.com, yimin@huawei.com, Jon Masters From: Marc Zyngier X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Organization: ARM Ltd Message-ID: Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 09:02:40 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <254387f0-1f63-4c83-ef90-570ef072cddf@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 04/01/17 08:25, Hanjun Guo wrote: > On 2017/1/4 15:29, Tomasz Nowicki wrote: >> On 04.01.2017 08:02, Hanjun Guo wrote: >>> Hi Tomasz, >>> >>> On 2017/1/3 15:41, Tomasz Nowicki wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Can we merge patch 4 & 6 into one patch so that we keep refactoring part >>>> as one piece ? I do not see a reason to keep them separate or have patch >>>> 5 in between. You can refactor what needs to be refactored, add >>>> necessary functions to iort.c and then support ACPI for >>>> irq-gic-v3-its-platform-msi.c >>> >>> There are two functions here, >>> - retrieve the dev id from IORT which was DT based only; >>> >>> - init the platform msi domain from MADT; >>> >>> For each of them split it into two steps, >>> - refactor the code for ACPI later and it's easy for review >>> because wen can easily to figure out it has functional >>> change or not >>> >>> - add ACPI functionality >>> >>> Does it make sense? >> >> It is up to Marc, but personally I prefer: >> 1. Refactor dev id retrieving and init function in one patch and >> highlight no functional changes in changelog >> 2. Crate necessary infrastructure in iort.c >> 3. Then add ACPI support to irq-gic-v3-its-platform-msi.c > > I have no strong preferences, and it's easy to do so as just > need to squash/reorder the patches. > > Marc, Lorenzo, could you give some suggestions here? I think it'd make the reviewing easier to have patches that are semantically grouped together (all the ACPI IORT together, for example). It would help understanding where you're aiming at instead of jumping from irqchip to ACPI and back every other patch... Thanks, M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...