On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 04:57:46PM +0530, Jayachandran Chandrashekaran Nair wrote: > Lorenzo, > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi > <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 02:05:37PM +0530, Jayachandran Chandrashekaran Nair wrote: > > > > [...] > > > >> pci_host_acpi.c is a generic implementation of these using a sysdata > >> pointing to acpi_pci_root_info, and using a pointer to the pci_mmcfg_region > >> to access ECAM area, Maybe I can rename this file to > >> pci_acpi_host_generic.c to reflect this better. > > > > Maybe you should stop sending this series and work with Tomasz to > > get this done, you are confusing everyone and I am really really > > annoyed about this. > > > > Do you realize there is no point in having two patch series doing > > the same thing and wasting everyone's review time ? > > > > Do you realize he started this work long before you and went through > > several rounds of review already (I told you before but in case you > > forgot) ? > > > > Tomasz posted a version yesterday, integrating comments following months > > of review and testing and I think it is ready to get upstream: > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/2/4/646 > > > > Did you even consider reviewing his code or helping him instead of > > churning out more patches doing the *SAME* thing ? > > This is getting ridiculous, I had replied to your earlier mails on why > my patchset is NOT doing the exact same thing. I had also explained > why helping was not feasible. > > The basic point again: I am trying to give a much simpler patchset > to solve the same problem, I take it that you haven't reviewed my > patchset before writing this mail. I would have appreciated > a technical discussion rather than this pointless flamefest. > > If you have reviewed it, you can see that there are just 5 patches > instead of 23, and that overall it is a much simpler approach. Ok, let's make it constructive. I think there is part of your implementation that definitely makes sense (in particular the way you cleaned-up the x86 MCFG unadulterated mess - patch 1), I will ask Tomasz to integrate it, please work together on this. I have nothing against your patchset, my point is that we can't keep reviewing and testing two series (and I mean on ARM64 AND x86), please understand my point, it is very time consuming to understand the differences and make sure we don't break x86 in the process and I would have to ask you to add all the code that I already reviewed in Tomasz's set, I just do not want to do that. I will reply to Tomasz, let's work together to have a single final implementation please, I do not think I am asking too much here and yes, by integrating part of your code I think Tomasz's patchset is ready to go, obviously subject to Bjorn's review and opinion. Thanks, Lorenzo -- 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
