[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v9 00/11] PM / Domains: Support hierarchical CPU arrangement (PSCI/ARM) (a subset)
On 4 October 2018 at 19:21, Lorenzo Pieralisi <> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 07:07:27PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> [...]
>> > > I don't see any dependency there, so I'll queue up the 1-3 in
>> > > pm-domains and the 4-6 in pm-cpuidle.
>> >
>> > I do not see why we should merge patches 4-6 for v4.20; they add legacy
>> > (DT bindings and related parsing code) with no user in the kernel; we
>> > may still want to tweak them, in particular PSCI DT bindings.
>> My impression was that 4-6 have been agreed on due to the ACKs they
>> carry. I'll drop them if that's not the case.
> I have not expressed myself correctly: they have been agreed (even
> though as I said they may require some tweaking) but I see no urgency
> of merging them in v4.20 since they have no user. They contain DT
> bindings, that create ABI/legacy, I think it is better to have code
> that uses them in the kernel before merging them and creating a
> dependency that is not needed.

There is already code using the new bindings, for the idle states.
Please have look at patch 5, 6 and 11.

Moreover, you have had plenty on time to look at the series, as those
patches haven't changed since a very long time.

May I suggest you do the review instead, so we can move things
forward, please. The changes in the v9 series should be trivial to

>> > Likewise, it makes no sense to merge patches 7-8 without the rest of
>> > the PSCI patches.

Well, those patches are part of this series, because Mark wanted me to
move the files. Is really such a big deal? I think it makes sense, no
matter what happens afterwards.


Kind regards

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-04 20:38    [W:0.078 / U:3.980 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site