On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 11:31:45 +0000 Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 21:13:25 +0100 > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 12:39 PM Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 20:37:57 +0100 > > > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Rafael, > > > > CC: linux-pm > > > > > > Oops. Stupid omission on my part, sorry about that! > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/20/2022 7:15 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > > > > From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > As more drivers start to use namespaces, we need to have varients of these > > > > > useful macros that allow the export to be in a particular namespace. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Cc: Paul Cercueil <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > I'd rather route this through linux-pm unless you have dependent changes. > > > > > > Ok. > > > > > > The kxsd9 patch (4) is dependent on other changes queued for > > > the merge window in IIO. If we want to do it through linux-pm I'd > > > love it if we can manage to get the ground work in for the coming merge window. > > > > > > So options are: > > > > > > 1) This patch alone via linux-pm and I queue the users up for next cycle > > > Fine by me but always awkward to have infrastructure with no users. > > > 2) First 3 patches via linux-pm so we have a user (scd30) in a low churn > > > driver and I'll queue the rest for 5.19. Fine by me as well. > > > That goes on cleanly on 5.17-rc1 and there is nothing else in my review > > > queue touching that driver. > > > > That would work for me. > > Great. Let's do that then. Are you fine picking them from this thread, or > would you like me to resend with just those 3 patches as a fresh series? Hi Rafael, I've not heard back from you, so have been assuming you'd pick those first 3 patches up from this series. Is that a correct assumption? Thanks, Jonathan > > > > > > I'm also interested to hear your view on the discussion going on in reply > > > to the cover letter. Specifically Paul suggested we 'only' have the > > > namespaced versions of these macros. > > > > Well, I'm a bit afraid that providing the namespaced versions only > > would slow down the adoption. > > Agreed, that's a concern and as Paul was happy with the route of > adding NS and perhaps looking eventually at dropping the non NS variant > I think we can move forward with this patch. > > Thanks, > > Jonathan > >
