[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141007022855.GA14466@kroah.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 19:28:55 -0700
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Bryan Wu <cooloney@...il.com>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/13] Add ACPI _DSD and unified device properties
support
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 02:10:56AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> This is version 4 of the unified device properties interface patchset.
>
> The original cover letter from Mika is here:
>
> http://marc.info/?l=devicetree&m=141087052200600&w=4
>
> My cover letter for version 3 is here:
>
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=141212903816560&w=4
>
> One major change from the previous iteration is that now we will
> use the "compatible" property to match drivers to devices having
> "PRP0001" as their _HID, so for example the at25 driver doesn't
> have to add the extra ACPI match table as part of the conversion
> to the unified interface (patch [05/13] in this series).
>
> The second major change is that I've split the driver core patch
> in two, where the first one ([02/13]) does not contain any stuff
> related to iterating over the child nodes of a given device.
> Accordingly, the whole patch series has been rearranged so that
> the relatively non-controversial patches [01-09/13], most of which
> have been ACKed already, go first and then goes the second driver
> core patch ([10/13]) and the other patches related to it.
>
> In patches [10-13/13] I used the Arnd's suggestion to implement
> device_for_each_child_node() as a macro which makes the changes
> in patches [12-13/13] look more straightforward among other things.
>
> I've retained the Greg's ACKs on patches [02/13] and [10/13], because
> the first of them is things ACKed by Greg only and the change in the
> second one is just an implementation detail in my opinion (Greg, please
> let me know if that's inappropriate).
No objection from me, looks good.
greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists