Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] ACPI: acpi_device_override_status() changes

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 18:05, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Rafael,
>
> As requested here is a v2 of my series previously titled:
> "ACPI: scan: Skip turning off some unused objects during scan"
>
> Which was a regression fix series for the commit c10383e8ddf4
> ("ACPI: scan: Release PM resources blocked by unused objects")
> change, but that has been reverted now. So as requested here is
> a v2 changing the wording of various commit messages since these
> changes are still useful to have regardless.
>
> Patch 1/7 is a v2/resend of the "ACPI / x86: Drop PWM2 device on
> Lenovo Yoga Book from always present table" patch. You requested
> changing the commit message of this one a bit to make it sound
> less like a regression fix (which it is not). But you already
> have the previous version of this patch in your bleeding-edge
> branch, with a "Cc: 5.1+ <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 5.1+"
> added ?  So depending on which version you want you can either
> skip this patch when applying this series, or replace it with
> the version from this series.
>
> Patches 2-4 are the main changes to make the always_present
> quirk handling more flexible, changing it into a status_override
> mechanism + adding a quirk for the GPD win and pocket to fix
> an issue with those in a more elegant matter then the current
> kludge in the sdhci-acpi code.
>
> Patch 5 is an unrelated patch which touches the override-status
> quirk table, so it needed to be rebased and I decided to add it
> to this series to make it clear that its v2 needs to be applied
> on top of the other ACPI changes from this series.
>
> Patches 6+7 cleanup the sdhci-acpi code, removing the now no
> longer needed ugly kludge for the GPD win/pocket. These can
> be merged independently from patches 1-5, through the mmc
> tree, as long as they get send to Linus during the same
> kernel cycle as the ACPI bits.

This sounds like the mmc changes are really not that independent after
all. What about bisectability?

An option is to funnel the sdhci patches together with the ACPI
patches through Rafael's tree. You have my ack for this, but let's
wait for Adrian's ack too.

[...]

Kind regards
Uffe



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Memonry Technology]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Media]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux