On 4 October 2018 at 20:36, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Should be 5, 6 and 10, sorry. > > 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
