On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 04:01:21PM +0000, Leonard Crestez wrote: > On Mon, 2018-09-17 at 16:09 +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 07:50:14PM +0300, Leonard Crestez wrote: > > > > V4 adds 4 more patches with PME_Turn_Off support on top, using a new > > > reset bit. I generally try to keep series short but in this case some > > > planning might be needed to get patches into 4.20. > > > > > > Since the new reset is treated as optional with old DTB there should be > > > again no problem if reset and pci are merged out of order. > > > > > > Shawn/Philipp/Lorenzo: Would it make sense to merge this series through a > > > single specific tree, such as the one for imx? > > > > This series is a bit of a mixture of multiple things hard to discern > > (actually I already merged patch 2 and patch 1 seems completely > > unrelated). > > > > I would take the series through the PCI tree but I need an ACK for > > patches 5 and 6, please let me know how you want to handle it. > > Patches 1 and 2 are already in, the rest need review. I can now just > resend patches 3-6 as a separate series, unless somebody complains > about spam. What do you mean by "are already in" ? Patch 2 I queued via the PCI tree, patch 1 ? Can I drop it from the PCI patch queue ? I do not think there is any need to resend, I can merge patches 3-4 since they have been reviewed but patches 5 and 6 need review. Lorenzo > Multiple separate patches are required because it touches reset + dt + > pci. I guess adding the include constant should be moved from the dts > patch to dt-bindings though. > > Merging reset and pci out of order should be fine here and is required > by DT compatibility rules anyway. > > -- > Regards, > Leonard
