On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 08:36:24PM +0200, Ulf Hansson 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. I had a look before replying and I reiterate the point, there is no reason to merge those patches without the rest of the series, none. There is already a way to describe idle states in the kernel and it works very well, we will add one when we need it not before. > Moreover, you have had plenty on time to look at the series, as those > patches haven't changed since a very long time. So ? > 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. There is no reason to merge patches [4, 5, 6, 10] stand-alone, they are not solving any problem and they do not provide any benefit other than adding useless ABI/legacy, they make sense when we look at the whole series. > >> > 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. We can merge patches [7-8] even if there is no urgency at all to do so, usually PSCI patches go via arm-soc whose patches queue is now closed and I do not think that's a problem at all. Lorenzo
