On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 10:53 AM Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 23/11/2021 13:13, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 18:05, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Rafael,
> >>
> >> As requested here is a v2 of my series previously titled:
> >> "ACPI: scan: Skip turning off some unused objects during scan"
> >>
> >> Which was a regression fix series for the commit c10383e8ddf4
> >> ("ACPI: scan: Release PM resources blocked by unused objects")
> >> change, but that has been reverted now. So as requested here is
> >> a v2 changing the wording of various commit messages since these
> >> changes are still useful to have regardless.
> >>
> >> Patch 1/7 is a v2/resend of the "ACPI / x86: Drop PWM2 device on
> >> Lenovo Yoga Book from always present table" patch. You requested
> >> changing the commit message of this one a bit to make it sound
> >> less like a regression fix (which it is not). But you already
> >> have the previous version of this patch in your bleeding-edge
> >> branch, with a "Cc: 5.1+ <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 5.1+"
> >> added ? So depending on which version you want you can either
> >> skip this patch when applying this series, or replace it with
> >> the version from this series.
> >>
> >> Patches 2-4 are the main changes to make the always_present
> >> quirk handling more flexible, changing it into a status_override
> >> mechanism + adding a quirk for the GPD win and pocket to fix
> >> an issue with those in a more elegant matter then the current
> >> kludge in the sdhci-acpi code.
> >>
> >> Patch 5 is an unrelated patch which touches the override-status
> >> quirk table, so it needed to be rebased and I decided to add it
> >> to this series to make it clear that its v2 needs to be applied
> >> on top of the other ACPI changes from this series.
> >>
> >> Patches 6+7 cleanup the sdhci-acpi code, removing the now no
> >> longer needed ugly kludge for the GPD win/pocket. These can
> >> be merged independently from patches 1-5, through the mmc
> >> tree, as long as they get send to Linus during the same
> >> kernel cycle as the ACPI bits.
> >
> > This sounds like the mmc changes are really not that independent after
> > all. What about bisectability?
> >
> > An option is to funnel the sdhci patches together with the ACPI
> > patches through Rafael's tree. You have my ack for this, but let's
> > wait for Adrian's ack too.
>
> Looks OK to me.
>
> Acked-by: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx>
All patches in the series applied as 5.17 material, thanks!
