On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:02:53PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote: > On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 19:39:27 +0000 , Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> > wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:17:27AM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > > Not only that, Sudeep has a patch to consolidate DT and ACPI SMP code, > > > I am working on it, I do not think it should be a blocking point, patch > > > coming asap on top of your series. > > > > Well, I don't really want to merge the series without those patches so I > > do think it blocks the code from getting into mainline. > > Really? It's a pretty minor duplication problem and it's been identified > as something requiring refactoring to both the ACPI and DT code. It > isn't at all dangerous. Why is this a blocking point? Because I don't really see a valid excuse not to get this right first time around. Lorenzo already has patches on top, so we just need a co-ordinated review effort. I wouldn't accept another patch series that needed minor rework (which by its very nature is easily addressed), so why should ACPI be treated any differently? Will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
