On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:37:22AM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 01:22:52PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > > [...] > > > > > > Hi Bjorn, > > > > > > > > > > there's a bunch of PCI related patches for Tegra floating around on the > > > > > lists. I'm wondering if you'd be okay if I pick those up into the Tegra > > > > > tree after they've been reviewed and send you a pull request later on > > > > > (say around v4.15-rc6). That would allow me to get things cooking in > > > > > linux-next for a bit and get broader testing in addition to the > > > > > flexibility to patch things up if they break. > > > > > > > > Lorenzo will be merging the Tegra stuff, so this is more a question > > > > for him. > > > > > > > > Just to clarify, I think your questions is about putting those patches > > > > in > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tegra/linux.git#for-next. > > > > If you put them there they will show up in linux-next, and then when > > > > Lorenzo merges them, you'll have to coordinate so they don't get > > > > merged into linux-next twice (once via the usual PCI tree route and > > > > again via the Tegra tree). > > > > > > > > If you wait until after they've been reviewed to put them into the > > > > Tegra tree, I'm not sure what the gain is, because I assume Lorenzo > > > > would merge them at about that same point. > > > > > > I think that after the review, the Tegra patches that are considered for > > > upstream they should go to -next via the PCI tree as any other platform PCI > > > patches; the relevant patches need ACKs from the respective platform > > > maintainer - I am getting to them as fast as I can. > > > > Just to clarify: I wasn't suggesting that these patches are merged for > > v4.16 via the Tegra tree, only that I carry them in the Tegra tree for a > > little while so that we can get broader testing and fix things up in > > case they break. My proposal was to then send a pull request for > > inclusion in the PCI tree. linux-next can deal with this type of > > scenario just fine because it will simply see the same branch twice and > > ignore the second one. > > > > If you prefer to merge directly via the PCI tree that works for me too. > > We would end up merging the patches into -next at the same time, so there > is not much point in queuing them via Tegra if they go via the PCI tree > eventually; we should not add to -next patches that are not ready to > be merged anyway. > > I need your help (ACKs) though to queue them up - I review the patches > but I can neither test them nor get access to HW TRMs so for some of them > there is not much I can do. I've sent out a small series of patches that apply on top of this patch which clean up and fix a couple of issues with this patch. Feel free to squash those into this patch if you prefer. Acked-by: Thierry Reding <treding@xxxxxxxxxx>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
