On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 13:11:47 +0100 Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 11:25:27 +0100, > Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 29 May 2024 14:34:27 +0100 > > Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > v10: > > > - Make acpi_processor_set_per_cpu() return 0 / error rather than bool > > > to simplify error handling at the call sites. > > > (Thanks to both Rafael and Gavin who commented on this) > > > - Gather tags. > > > - Rebase on v6.10-rc1 > > > > > > The approach to the GICv3 changes stablized very late in the 6.10 cycle. > > > Subject to Marc taking a final look at those, I think we are now > > > in a good state wrt to those and the ACPI parts. The remaining code > > > that hasn't received review tags from the relevant maintainers > > > is the arm64 specific arch_register_cpu(). Given I think this will go > > > through the arm64 tree, hopefully they have just been waiting for > > > everything else to be ready. > > > > Marc, Will, Catalin, > > > > Any comments on this series? We definitely want to finally land this > > in 6.11! > > > > Marc, in practice I think you already gave feedback on the the GICv3 > > changes in here as part of the discussions in the earlier version threads, > > but if you have time for a final glance through it would be much appreciated. > > Thanks for all your earlier help on this btw. > > I've had a quick look and the GICv3 parts look OK to me (you should > now have by tags for both patches). > > Thanks, > > M. Thanks again for your help with this one Marc. Will, Catalin? We are nearly at RC6 and this series has been unchanged all cycle. Great to hear your opinions on this. My assumption is that it will go through your tree if you are happy with it. Thanks, Jonathan
