On Friday 29 March 2013 06:20 PM, Amit Kucheria wrote: > On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Santosh Shilimkar > <santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx> wrote: >> On Friday 29 March 2013 05:26 PM, Amit Kucheria wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Daniel Lezcano >>> <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On 03/29/2013 11:38 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: >>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 04:01 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>>>>> The driver is initialized several times. This is wrong and if the >>>>>> return code of the function was checked, it will return -EINVAL. >>>>>> >>>>>> Move this initialization out of the loop. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> --- >>>>> Fix for this is already and v2 of the patch is here [1] >>>> >>>> Ah, ok. Thanks for reviewing the patch. >>>> >>>> Can we find a solution to have a single entry point to sumbit patches >>>> for all the cpuidle drivers ? >>>> >>>> Otherwise, consolidating them is a pain: a patch for the samsung tree, >>>> another one for the at91 tree, etc ... and wait for all the trees to >>>> sync before continuing to consolidate the code. >>>> >>>> Wouldn't be worth to move these drivers under the PM umbrella instead of >>>> the SoC specific code ? >>>> >>>> Any idea to simplify the cpuidle consolidation and maintenance ? >>> >>> Adding Arnd and Olof to this discussion since atleast the ARM drivers >>> go through their arm-soc tree. >>> >>> Given the work you're putting in to consolidate the drivers, perhaps >>> they can insist that idle drivers get acked by you? >>> >> Not to create controversy but as a general rule there is nothing >> like *insisting* ack on patches for merge apart from the official >> maintainers(gate keepers). >> >> Having said that, its always good to get more reviews and acks so >> that better code gets merged. >> >> This just my personal opinion. > > I'm not asking for special treatment here. :) I'm requesting one set > of maintainers (arm-soc maintainers) to push back on changes that > don't get platform idle drivers in sync with the consolidation work > that is currently ongoing. > > This will speed up the process since it is hard to track every > SoC-specific list for these changes. Some platform maintainers might > not even be aware of it (those that Daniel hasn't modified yet). A > similar approach seems to have worked for common clock, DT, pinmux, > etc. > Every patch gets pulled into arm-soc/arm-core has to be posted on LAKML. So as long as everybody follows that rule, there is no need to track every SoC lists. And what I have seen so far every this rule has been followed well. Regards, Santosh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
