Hi Hans On 25/05/2021 14:10, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > On 5/20/21 4:09 PM, Daniel Scally wrote: >> Hello all >> >> Apologies for the long delay since the last version of this series; the time I >> had free to work on it became somewhat restrained. > No worries, thank you for all the work you are putting into this. My pleasure > I have not taken a close look at the code yet, but I see that Andy has and > the amount of remarks which he has on patch 7/8 which is the big one seems > to be limited, so I believe that we are getting close to this being ready > for merging. > > This touches a lot of subsystems, so we need to come up with a plan to > merge this. Here is my proposal for how to do this: > > 1/8 ACPI: scan: Extend acpi_walk_dep_device_list() > 2/8 ACPI: scan: Add function to fetch dependent of acpi device > 3/8 i2c: core: Add a format macro for I2C device names > 4/8 gpiolib: acpi: Export acpi_get_gpiod() > 5/8 clkdev: Make clkdev_drop() null aware > 6/8 gpiolib: acpi: Add acpi_gpio_get_io_resource() > 7/8 platform/x86: Add intel_skl_int3472 driver > 8/8 mfd: tps68470: Remove tps68470 MFD driver > > Rafael already indicated that he wants to merge 1/8 (and presumably also 2/8) > through his tree and that he will provide an immutable branch with those > for merging into the pdx86 tree. I'll send a v5 with the renames asap, might try and do the other changes and send the whole series, depends how much time I get to work on it over the next few days... > 4/8 and 6/8 are both gpiolib-acpi patches and seem to be ready for merging > now, perhaps the gpiolib-acpi maintainers can already merge these and also > provide an immutable branch ? Andy/Mika ? So, Andy, you'd prefer I re-order these so they're consecutive...did I understand that right? > 3/8 and 5/8 seem to be nice cleanups, but not really necessary. IMHO it > would be best to park these cleanups for later and for 3/8 add the following > where necessary for now: > > /* FIXME drop this once the I2C_DEV_NAME_FORMAT macro has been added to include/linux/i2c.h */ > #ifndef I2C_DEV_NAME_FORMAT > #define I2C_DEV_NAME_FORMAT "i2c-%s" > #endif > > This is not the prettiest but it reduces all the subsys cross-deps and things > like this have been done before for similar reasons. > > Likewise it would be good if you can add if (foo) as condition before any > clkdev_drop(foo) calls in this patch-set and then merge > 5/8 "clkdev: Make clkdev_drop() null aware" independently of this and then > once both are in Linux tree follow-up with a cleanup patch dropping the if (foo) > guards. This is fine by me if people are happy for it to go in like that; I'll just fix it up later. > So this would leave as deps for 7/8 just the 2 ACPI and 2 gpiolib-acpi patches > which I can hopefully pull-in via immutable branches and then we are good. > > AFAICT patch 8/8 can be merged independently once 7/8 hits for-next (IOW once > we are sure the next kernel will have 7/8). > > > > Or alternatively one of the involved subsys maintainers just merges the entire > set (once it is ready) and then provides an immutable branch with the entire set > on top of 5.13-rc1 (or 5.14-rc1). But that requires acks from all the other > subsys maintainers. Note I'm fine with either approach.
