From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lorenzo Pieralisi Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 6/8] drivers: cpuidle: CPU idle ARM64 driver Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 16:34:57 +0100 Message-ID: <20140905153457.GA26306@e102568-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1409585324-3678-1-git-send-email-lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> <1409585324-3678-7-git-send-email-lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> <20140903173740.GJ1824@e102568-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20140904160320.GB22354@arm.com> <20140904172909.GA14822@e102568-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20140905092120.GG13515@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140905092120.GG13515@arm.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Will Deacon Cc: Catalin Marinas , Mark Rutland , Lina Iyer , Chander Kashyap , Vincent Guittot , Nicolas Pitre , "daniel.lezcano@linaro.org" , Ashwin Chaugule , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "grant.likely@linaro.org" , Charles Garcia-Tobin , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Kevin Hilman , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Sebastian Capella , Mark Brown , Antti Miettinen , Paul Walmsley , Geoff Levand , Peter De Schrijver List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 10:21:20AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 06:29:10PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 05:03:20PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 06:37:40PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > > > This patch should be ready to go too, is it ok if I split the series > > > > in arm64 arch specific patches (will ask Catalin to pull) and CPUidle ones > > > > (inclusive of DT bindings and !!this patch!!) and send two separate pull > > > > requests ? > > > > > > If Daniel/Rafael don't have any objection, I can take the whole series > > > through the arm64 tree (it seems that patches have been already acked by > > > Daniel). > > > > Thanks a lot Catalin. Since this one is a brand new CPUidle driver and it > > follows a different pattern from arm legacy drivers I would like to get > > Daniel's ack on this patch too before pushing it. For the records I have > > just added two pr_err to signal driver probing error, ultraminor changes > > that do not justify a repost. > > > > If Samsung guys do not manifest themselves I would drop patch 8 from > > the series till it gets tested and its patch dependency queued too. > > The last patch also has a dependency, as you mentioned to Daniel. I think > we can certainly merge the arm64 parts, and if Daniel doesn't object, then > we can take the driver stuff too but leaving the exynos bits out (i.e. drop > the last patch). > > Anyway, if you could repost with the acks you've collected and rearrange it > so the arm64 patches are first in the series, that would be great. I can repost it with the acks and rearrange the patches, but for the pull request I have to know what code can be merged, since there are some arm64 patches (PSCI and CPUidle arm64 back-end) that are strictly tied to the arm64 CPUidle driver, so I *have* to know if the arm64 CPUidle driver (this patch) can get merged and that requires an ack. If I do not hear from Samsung guys I will drop patch 8. I will wait till Monday (ie -rc4) and repost, I hope that's acceptable. Thank you ! Lorenzo From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com (Lorenzo Pieralisi) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 16:34:57 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v8 6/8] drivers: cpuidle: CPU idle ARM64 driver In-Reply-To: <20140905092120.GG13515@arm.com> References: <1409585324-3678-1-git-send-email-lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> <1409585324-3678-7-git-send-email-lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> <20140903173740.GJ1824@e102568-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20140904160320.GB22354@arm.com> <20140904172909.GA14822@e102568-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20140905092120.GG13515@arm.com> Message-ID: <20140905153457.GA26306@e102568-lin.cambridge.arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 10:21:20AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 06:29:10PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 05:03:20PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 06:37:40PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > > > This patch should be ready to go too, is it ok if I split the series > > > > in arm64 arch specific patches (will ask Catalin to pull) and CPUidle ones > > > > (inclusive of DT bindings and !!this patch!!) and send two separate pull > > > > requests ? > > > > > > If Daniel/Rafael don't have any objection, I can take the whole series > > > through the arm64 tree (it seems that patches have been already acked by > > > Daniel). > > > > Thanks a lot Catalin. Since this one is a brand new CPUidle driver and it > > follows a different pattern from arm legacy drivers I would like to get > > Daniel's ack on this patch too before pushing it. For the records I have > > just added two pr_err to signal driver probing error, ultraminor changes > > that do not justify a repost. > > > > If Samsung guys do not manifest themselves I would drop patch 8 from > > the series till it gets tested and its patch dependency queued too. > > The last patch also has a dependency, as you mentioned to Daniel. I think > we can certainly merge the arm64 parts, and if Daniel doesn't object, then > we can take the driver stuff too but leaving the exynos bits out (i.e. drop > the last patch). > > Anyway, if you could repost with the acks you've collected and rearrange it > so the arm64 patches are first in the series, that would be great. I can repost it with the acks and rearrange the patches, but for the pull request I have to know what code can be merged, since there are some arm64 patches (PSCI and CPUidle arm64 back-end) that are strictly tied to the arm64 CPUidle driver, so I *have* to know if the arm64 CPUidle driver (this patch) can get merged and that requires an ack. If I do not hear from Samsung guys I will drop patch 8. I will wait till Monday (ie -rc4) and repost, I hope that's acceptable. Thank you ! Lorenzo