On 5 October 2018 at 12:47, Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Okay, let's defer them. > >> 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. Okay, let's defer them. > >> >> > 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. Okay, let's defer them. That said, can please review the patches? Kind regards Uffe
