[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <10136406.EY9A7BdqYq@aspire.rjw.lan>
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2018 11:01:10 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
Lina Iyer <ilina@...eaurora.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 00/11] PM / Domains: Support hierarchical CPU arrangement (PSCI/ARM) (a subset)
On Thursday, October 4, 2018 10:58:53 AM CEST Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 4 October 2018 at 10:39, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 4:39 PM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> I have digested the review comments so far, including a recent offlist chat
> >> with with Lorenzo Pieralisi around the debatable PSCI changes. More or less I
> >> have a plan for how to move forward.
> >>
> >> However, to avoid re-posting non-changed patches over and over again, I decided
> >> to withhold the more debatable part from this v9, hence this is not the complete
> >> series to make things play. In v9, I have just included the trivial changes,
> >> which are either already acked/reviewed or hopefully can be rather soon/easily.
> >>
> >> My hope is to get this queued for v4.20, to move things forward. I know it's
> >> late, but there are more or less nothing new here since v8.
> >
> > I have no problems with the first three patches in this series, so I
> > can apply them right away. Do you want me to do that?
>
> Yes, please.
>
> >
> > As for the rest, the cpuidle driver patch looks OK to me, but the
> > PSCI-related ones need ACKs.
>
> For some yes, but I think you can go ahead with a few more.
>
> Patch 4, 5 is already acked/reviewed.
>
> Patch 6 should be fine (if you are okay with it else wait for an ack
> from Daniel)
OK, thanks.
Do the 4-6 depend on the 1-3?
> Patch 7 and 8 should be fine. They were suggested by Mark.
I'd rather have ACKs on these two as well.
> Patch 9 and 10 needs acks.
>
> Patch 11 has been acked, but depends on the other PSCI changes.
OK
Powered by blists - more mailing lists