On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 11:38:43 AM Will Deacon wrote: > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:54:25AM +0000, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 11:24:11 AM Will Deacon wrote: > > > 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? > > > > Not ACPI, but this particular patchset I think. The problem is that it has > > already been reviewed and ACKed by multiple people and it would be a shame > > to require all of those people to do their reviews once again because of > > that minor rework (which arguably can be done on top of the patchset just > > fine). > > > > Of course, if the minor rework in question would not involve the need to > > review things once again, then I agree that it'd be better to do it upfront, > > but otherwise there's a good reason not to. > > Aha, I think this is just a misunderstanding -- I'm certainly not suggesting > that Hanjun rework the current set! What I *am* asking for is that they go > into mainline with Lorenzo's patches on top, which means that his series [1] > needs some review (and I plan to look at it later today). OK, that works for me, thanks for the clarification! For the record, I've looked at the Lorenzo's series already and I don't see anything particularly objectionable in it. > [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-March/333257.html -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- 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
