On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:32:26PM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:14:49PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 08:14:11PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: > > > Reported-by: Pankaj Bansal <pankaj.bansal@xxxxxxx> > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-acpi/20191215203303.29811-1-pankaj.bansal@xxxxxxx/ > > > Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Pankaj Bansal <pankaj.bansal@xxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@xxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > I'm a bit confused about the SoB chain here and which tree this is > > targetting. > > > > Lorenzo? > > sorry about that. It targets arm64 - previously wasn't addressed > to you and Catalin: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/1577708824-4873-1-git-send-email-guohanjun@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > I rewrote the commit log and asked Hanjun to repost it to target an arm64 > merge. No need to apologise, just trying to figure out what's going on. Thanks for the explanation. > Having said that, this patch makes me nervous, it can break on platforms > that have non-compliant firmware, I wonder whether it is best to leave > it in -next for a whole cycle (I can send it to -next) to catch any > fall-out rather than targeting v5.6 given that technically is _not_ a > fix (we may even have to revert it - it requires coverage on all ARM64 > ACPI systems). > > What do you think ? My experience with linux-next is that it doesn't get tonnes of runtime testing but rather lots of build testing, so I'd be inclined to queue this for 5.6 (i.e. for the upcoming merge window) and revert it the moment it causes a problem. I'll stick it on its own branch so we can also drop it if something comes up before then. Will
