On Wednesday, June 12, 2019 11:43:38 AM CEST Suzuki K Poulose wrote: > Hi Rafael, > > On 06/06/2019 10:57, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 11:28 AM Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 06/06/2019 10:17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 5:14 PM Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Add a generic helper to match a device by the acpi device. > >>> > >>> "by its ACPI companion device object", please. > >> > >> Sure. > >> > >>> > >>> Also, it would be good to combine this patch with the patch(es) that > >>> cause device_match_acpi_dev() to be actually used. > >>> > >>> Helpers without any users are arguably not useful. > >> > >> Sure, the helpers will be part of the part2 of the whole series, > >> which will actually have the individual subsystems consuming the > >> new helpers. For your reference, it is available here : > >> > >> http://linux-arm.org/git?p=linux-skp.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/driver-cleanup/v2 > >> > >> e.g: > >> http://linux-arm.org/git?p=linux-skp.git;a=commit;h=59534e843e2f214f1f29659993f6e423bef16b28 > >> > >> I could simply pull those patches into this part, if you prefer that. > > > > Not really. > > > > I'd rather do it the other way around: push the introduction of the > > helpers to part 2. > > Sure, I will do that. > > > > >> However, that would be true for the other patches in the part2. > >> I am open to suggestions, on how to split the series. > > > > You can introduce each helper along with its users in one patch. > > > > This way the total number of patches will be reduced and they will be > > easier to review IMO. > > > > Wouldn't it make the merging complicated ? I am still not clear how we plan > to merge the part 2 ? I wouldn't worry about it that much. Without review, you have nothing to merge anyway. Technically, every patch with a new helper and its users can go in via the Greg's tree as long as it has been ACKed by the maintainers of the code touched by it.
