lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v9 00/11] PM / Domains: Support hierarchical CPU arrangement (PSCI/ARM) (a subset)
On 5 October 2018 at 12:47, Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 08:36:24PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> On 4 October 2018 at 19:21, Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> 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.
>
> I had a look before replying and I reiterate the point, there is
> no reason to merge those patches without the rest of the series,
> none. There is already a way to describe idle states in the kernel
> and it works very well, we will add one when we need it not before.

Okay, let's defer them.

>
>> Moreover, you have had plenty on time to look at the series, as those
>> patches haven't changed since a very long time.
>
> So ?
>
>> 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
>> review.
>
> There is no reason to merge patches [4, 5, 6, 10] stand-alone, they
> are not solving any problem and they do not provide any benefit
> other than adding useless ABI/legacy, they make sense when we look
> at the whole series.

Okay, let's defer them.

>
>> >> > 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.
>
> We can merge patches [7-8] even if there is no urgency at all to do so,
> usually PSCI patches go via arm-soc whose patches queue is now closed
> and I do not think that's a problem at all.

Okay, let's defer them.

That said, can please review the patches?

Kind regards
Uffe

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-05 13:50    [W:0.106 / U:4.692 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site