On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 at 14:17, Lorenzo Pieralisi
<lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 02:07:51PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 at 12:49, Lorenzo Pieralisi
> > <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 11:36:49AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > Instead, my suggestion is according to what I propose in patch 4 and
> > > > $subject patch, which means minor adjustments to be able to pass the
> > > > struct cpuidle_driver * to the init functions. This, I need it for
> > > > next steps, but already at this point it improves things as it avoids
> > > > some of the OF parsing, and that's good, isn't it?
> > >
> > > I will take the patches Mark ACKed and send them for v5.2 as
> > > early as it gets in v5.1-rc* cycle.
> >
> > Actually, may I suggest we funnel these through Rafael's tree, unless
> > you are expecting other PSCI changes for v.5.2, which could cause
> > conflicts?
> >
> > The reason is, other PM core changes, to genpd for example, needs to
> > go via Rafael's tree. Those would then potentially block us for
> > applying any other changes to your tree (arm-soc?) for PSCI (as there
> > is dependency) until v5.3.
> >
> > How about if you provides your explicit acks for those PSCI changes
> > your are happy with, then Rafael can pick them?
>
> It is fine we can do that, I would have not sent the patches Mark
> has ACKed to arm-soc till -{rc2/rc3} anyway.
Great!
May I suggest you just reply to the cover-letter and provide the acks
to the relevant patches, then I can then collect the received acks
tags and re-post them to Rafael once rc1 is out.
Kind regards
Uffe
>
> Thanks,
> Lorenzo
>
> > > For this one maybe you can post the changes on top and see what's
> > > the best way forward ?
> > >
> > > I agree that duplicating idle state parsing code across back-ends
> > > is silly - we just want to keep PSCI and kernel data structure
> > > decoupled.
> >
> > Right. Let's continue this discussion later on and move forward here.
> > Make sense.
> >
> > >
> > > Post the code on top and we will find a way forward, OK ?
> >
> > Sure, let me do that.
> >
> > Thanks and kind regards
> > Uffe
