[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2196518.cd4jtVChuo@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 01:41:06 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>
Cc: fu.wei@...aro.org, lenb@...nel.org, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, marc.zyngier@....com, hanjun.guo@...aro.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
rruigrok@...eaurora.org, harba@...eaurora.org, cov@...eaurora.org,
graeme.gregory@...aro.org, al.stone@...aro.org, jcm@...hat.com,
"wei@...hat.com--cc=arnd"@arndb.de, wim@...ana.be,
catalin.marinas@....com, will.deacon@....com,
Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com, leo.duran@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] acpi, clocksource, kvm: add GTDT and ARM memory-mapped timer support
On Thursday, March 17, 2016 10:07:30 AM Timur Tabi wrote:
> fu.wei@...aro.org wrote:
> > From: Fu Wei <fu.wei@...aro.org>
> >
> > This patchset:
> > (1)Move some enums and marcos to header file for arm_arch_timer,
> > improve the pr_* code by defining "pr_fmt(fmt)" in arm_arch_timer.c
> >
> > (2)Introduce ACPI GTDT parser: drivers/acpi/gtdt.c
> > Parse all kinds of timer in GTDT table of ACPI:arch timer,
> > memory-mapped timer and SBSA Generic Watchdog timer.
> > This driver can help to simplify all the relevant timer drivers,
> > and separate all the ACPI GTDT knowledge from them.
> >
> > (3)Simplify ACPI code for arch timer in arm_arch_timer.c
> >
> > (4)Add memory-mapped timer support in arm_arch_timer.c
>
> The SBSA watchdog driver is already in watchdog-next and will be merged
> into 4.6. These five patches are necessary for the watchdog driver to
> probe on an ACPI system.
>
> I'm guessing since that v4 was posted in the middle of the 4.6 merge
> window, that these patches won't make it and we'll have to wait until
> 4.7 (at the earliest)?
First off, the last version I've seen is the v3. I must have overlooked
the v4 then, but I don't think it was CCed to linux-acpi (which should
have happened).
Second, these patches require review from multiple maintainers and (or including)
people who actually know how the GTDT is supposed to be used. I haven't
seen any responses from any of them yet, so the answer to your question is
"yes".
I will have a couple of comments for patch [1/6] (in the v3), but it's
not been a priority due to the apparent overall lack of interest in this
series.
Thanks,
Rafael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists