[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jcCD3qWUJQcS+nFVJWSCQEbq2eN3i07mN8yFr3WZD9dg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2021 21:33:28 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Cc: Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com>,
Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Mark Gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>,
Ike Panhc <ike.pan@...onical.com>,
Mark Pearson <markpearson@...ovo.com>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] IdeaPad platform profile support
On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 3:36 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 1/1/21 1:56 PM, Jiaxun Yang wrote:
> > Tested on Lenovo Yoga-14SARE Chinese Edition.
> >
> > Jiaxun Yang (2):
> > ACPI: platform-profile: Introduce data parameter to handler
> > platform/x86: ideapad-laptop: DYTC Platform profile support
> >
> > drivers/acpi/platform_profile.c | 4 +-
> > drivers/platform/x86/Kconfig | 1 +
> > drivers/platform/x86/ideapad-laptop.c | 281 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > include/linux/platform_profile.h | 5 +-
> > 4 files changed, 287 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
>
> Thank you for your series, unfortunately the
> "ACPI: platform-profile: Introduce data parameter to handler"
> patch causes a conflict with the pending:
> "[PATCH v8 3/3] platform/x86: thinkpad_acpi: Add platform profile support"
> patch.
>
> But I do agree that adding that data parameter makes sense, so
> it might be best to merge:
>
> "ACPI: platform-profile: Introduce data parameter to handler"
>
> First and then rebase the thinkpad_acpi patch on top.
>
> Rafael, do you think you could add:
>
> "ACPI: platform-profile: Introduce data parameter to handler"
>
> To the 2 ACPI: platform-profile patches which you already have pending for 5.11-rc# ?
I'm not sure why that patch is needed at all, because whoever
registers a platform profile handler needs to have access to the
original handler object anyway.
Also, on a somewhat related note, I'm afraid that it may not be a good
idea to push this series for 5.11-rc in the face of recent objections
against new material going in after the merge window.
Cheers!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists