On 4 October 2018 at 19:21, Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 07:07:27PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > [...] > >> > > I don't see any dependency there, so I'll queue up the 1-3 in >> > > pm-domains and the 4-6 in pm-cpuidle. >> > >> > I do not see why we should merge patches 4-6 for v4.20; they add legacy >> > (DT bindings and related parsing code) with no user in the kernel; we >> > may still want to tweak them, in particular PSCI DT bindings. >> >> My impression was that 4-6 have been agreed on due to the ACKs they >> carry. I'll drop them if that's not the case. > > I have not expressed myself correctly: they have been agreed (even > though as I said they may require some tweaking) but I see no urgency > of merging them in v4.20 since they have no user. They contain DT > bindings, that create ABI/legacy, I think it is better to have code > that uses them in the kernel before merging them and creating a > dependency that is not needed. There is already code using the new bindings, for the idle states. Please have look at patch 5, 6 and 11. Moreover, you have had plenty on time to look at the series, as those patches haven't changed since a very long time. May I suggest you do the review instead, so we can move things forward, please. The changes in the v9 series should be trivial to review. > >> > Likewise, it makes no sense to merge patches 7-8 without the rest of >> > the PSCI patches. Well, those patches are part of this series, because Mark wanted me to move the files. Is really such a big deal? I think it makes sense, no matter what happens afterwards. [...] Kind regards Uffe
