[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181005104729.GB25651@red-moon>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 11:47:29 +0100
From: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....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 Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 08:36:24PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 4 October 2018 at 19:21, Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....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.
> 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.
> >> > 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.
Lorenzo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists