[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKc_7PWFGJSYk0nmLX7cG_1HDHdKSK7NCwWN0_G_e+WwqEs5aQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 00:20:32 +0530
From: Jayachandran C <jchandra@...adcom.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc: Tomasz Nowicki <tn@...ihalf.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, rafael@...nel.org,
Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>, jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com,
Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@...citrix.com>,
robert.richter@...iumnetworks.com, Marcin Wojtas <mw@...ihalf.com>,
Liviu.Dudau@....com, David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>,
Wangyijing <wangyijing@...wei.com>,
Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com, msalter@...hat.com,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org, Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 01/15] ACPI: MCFG: Move mmcfg_list management to drivers/acpi
Hi Bjorn,
On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Tomasz,
>
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 04:11:55PM +0200, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
> > On 09.03.2016 10:13, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
> > >Hi Bjorn,
> > >
> > >Thanks for your pointers! See my comments inline. Aslo, can you please
> > >have a look at my previous patch set v4 and check how many of your
> > >comments are already addressed there. We may want to back to it then.
> > >
> > >https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/2/4/646
> > >Especially patches [0-6] which handle MMCONFIG refactoring.
> > >
> > >
> > >On 05.03.2016 05:14, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> [...]
> > >
> > >As you pointed out raw_pci_{read|write} make things complicated, so IMO
> > >we should either say they are absolutely necessary (and then think how
> > >to simplify it) or just use simple bus-specific accessor (patch 02/15)
> > >e.g. for ARM64.
> > >
> > >Any comments appreciated.
>
> > Kindly reminder. I would like to move on with this patch set. Can
> > you please comments on it so that we could decide which way to go.
>
> Can you repost your current proposal with a version number higher than
> any previous ones? It's OK if the content is the same as v4; I just
> think it's confusing if we resurrect v4 and have to follow discussion
> from v3 to v4 to v5 and back to v4. The archives would be a bit of a
> muddle.
I had posted a patchset based on your suggestions in this thread
https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/3/17/621
Would appreciate any comments on that. Like I said in the earlier
mail, if this is a reasonable approach, I can combine this with
Tomasz patchset to provide the full patchset for ACPI support.
Thanks,
JC.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists