On Sat, Oct 15, 2022 at 10:56 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 7:55 PM Dmitry Torokhov > <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 08:42:13PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 07:13:37PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 1:22 AM Dmitry Torokhov > > > > <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > I think that patches [5-8/13] from this series are significant > > > > framework changes, so it would make sense to route them via the ACPI > > > > tree. > > > > > > > > If this is fine with everybody, I will queue them up for merging into > > > > 6.1 (probably in the second half of the upcoming merge window). > > > > > > I believe it's fine from GPIO ACPI perspective (there shouldn't be conflict, > > > but if you wish you always may take this PR [1] to your tree (it's already in > > > GPIO tree pending v6.1), it may be considered as immutable tag. > > > > > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-gpio/Yym%2Fj+Y9MBOIhWtK@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > Yeah, having an immutable branch hanging off 6.0-rcN would be awesome - > > I could pull it and this would avoid any potential conflicts later. > > This material is in the mainline now, but the branch is still there in > case you need it: > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git \ > acpi-wakeup > > It won't be necessary any more after 6.1-rc1 is out, though, I suppose. Awesome, thanks for merging in the ACPI patches!
