On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:30 PM, David Daney <ddaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 05/11/2016 02:22 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 11:08 PM, David Daney <ddaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/11/2016 01:35 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 02:43:11AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 8:07 PM, David Daney <ddaney.cavm@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: David Daney <david.daney@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Based on
>>>>>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm64/linux.git
>>>>>>> for-next/core branch at commit 643d703d2d2d ("arm64: compat: Check
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> AArch32 state")
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>>> David Daney (2):
>>>>>>> arm64, numa: Cleanup NUMA disabled messages.
>>>>>>> acpi, numa, srat: Improve SRAT error detection and add messages.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hanjun Guo (11):
>>>>>>> acpi, numa: Use pr_fmt() instead of printk
>>>>>>> acpi, numa: Replace ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT() with pr_debug()
>>>>>>> acpi, numa: remove duplicate NULL check
>>>>>>> acpi, numa: move acpi_numa_slit_init() to drivers/acpi/numa.c
>>>>>>> arm64, numa: rework numa_add_memblk()
>>>>>>> x86, acpi, numa: cleanup acpi_numa_processor_affinity_init()
>>>>>>> acpi, numa: move bad_srat() and srat_disabled() to
>>>>>>> drivers/acpi/numa.c
>>>>>>> acpi, numa: remove unneeded acpi_numa=1
>>>>>>> acpi, numa: Move acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() to
>>>>>>> drivers/acpi/numa.c
>>>>>>> arm64, acpi, numa: NUMA support based on SRAT and SLIT
>>>>>>> acpi, numa: Enable ACPI based NUMA on ARM64
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Robert Richter (1):
>>>>>>> acpi, numa: Move acpi_numa_arch_fixup() to ia64 only
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I need ACKs from the ARM64 maintainers on patches [6-7/13] and
>>>>>> [13-14/14].
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There's also a dependency on the arm64 for-next/core branch, so I've
>>>>> been
>>>>> largely ignoring this as far as 4.6 is concerned and was planning to
>>>>> take
>>>>> a proper look for 4.7 once the upcoming merge window is out of the way.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That would be 4.7 and 4.8 respectively I suppose?
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, Catalin has ACKed all of them except for the [13/14], so
>>>> technically I can apply [1-12/14] now and then [13-14/14] can be
>>>> applied when they are ready.
>>>>
>>>> Do you think there will be any problems with merging [6-7/14] into 4.7
>>>> via the ACPI tree?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I would defer to the arm64 maintainers for decisions about the arm64
>>> specific parts of the patch set. That said, many of the arm64 specific
>>> patches depend on the arm64 for-next/core branch, so you would have to be
>>> careful about merge ordering if you pull these in before the
>>> for-next/core
>>> branch is merged.
>>
>>
>> Fair enough. I will wait for an update then.
>>
>>> Also FWIW, I plan on addressing Catalin's comments about 13/14 and
>>> posting a
>>> new version of the patch set in the next day or two.
>>
>>
>> OK, but in that case it won't be considered for 4.7 (at least not by
>> me), so I'd suggest sending it in the second half of the 4.7 merge
>> window (or about that time).
>
>
> To be candid, I would very much like for you to pull in as many of the
> patches as you are comfortable with as soon as possible.
>
> I don't know where Will and Catalin stand on this, and their opinion is
> obviously important, but getting 1-12/14 merged to v4.7 and deferring the
> last two for v4.8 would simplify the whole process for me. The drawback is
> carrying dead code around until the final parts are merged.
That is not unheard of, however.
OK, I'll try to put the [1-12/14] into my linux-next branch early next
week and we'll see if that triggers any conflicts.
--
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
