On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 9:58:52 AM CEST Lee Jones wrote: > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 10:53:41 +0200, > > > Lee Jones wrote: > > >> > > >> On Tue, 05 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > >> > > >> > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 10:10:49 +0200, > > >> > Lee Jones wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 09:24:51 +0200, > > >> > > > Lee Jones wrote: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, 04 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > This patch adds the MFD driver for Dollar Cove (TI version) PMIC with > > >> > > > > > ACPI INT33F5 that is found on some Intel Cherry Trail devices. > > >> > > > > > The driver is based on the original work by Intel, found at: > > >> > > > > > https://github.com/01org/ProductionKernelQuilts > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > This is a minimal version for adding the basic resources. Currently, > > >> > > > > > only ACPI PMIC opregion and the external power-button are used. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=193891 > > >> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> > > >> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx> > > >> > > > > > --- > > >> > > > > > v4->v5: > > >> > > > > > * Minor coding-style fixes suggested by Lee > > >> > > > > > * Put GPL text > > >> > > > > > v3->v4: > > >> > > > > > * no change for this patch > > >> > > > > > v2->v3: > > >> > > > > > * Rename dc_ti with chtdc_ti in all places > > >> > > > > > * Driver/kconfig renames accordingly > > >> > > > > > * Added acks by Andy and Mika > > >> > > > > > v1->v2: > > >> > > > > > * Minor cleanups as suggested by Andy > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > drivers/mfd/Kconfig | 13 +++ > > >> > > > > > drivers/mfd/Makefile | 1 + > > >> > > > > > drivers/mfd/intel_soc_pmic_chtdc_ti.c | 184 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >> > > > > > 3 files changed, 198 insertions(+) > > >> > > > > > create mode 100644 drivers/mfd/intel_soc_pmic_chtdc_ti.c > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > For my own reference: > > >> > > > > Acked-for-MFD-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Thanks! > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Now the question is how to deal with these. It's no critical things, > > >> > > > so I'm OK to postpone for 4.15. OTOH, it's really a new > > >> > > > device-specific stuff, thus it can't break anything else, and it'd be > > >> > > > fairly safe to add it for 4.14 although it's at a bit late stage. > > >> > > > > >> > > Yes, you are over 2 weeks late for v4.14. It will have to be v4.15. > > >> > > > >> > OK, I'll ring your bells again once when 4.15 development is opened. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > IMO, it'd be great if you can carry all stuff through MFD tree; or > > >> > > > create an immutable branch (again). But how to handle it, when to do > > >> > > > it, It's all up to you guys. > > >> > > > > >> > > If there aren't any build dependencies between the patches, each of > > >> > > the patches should be applied through their own trees. What are the > > >> > > build-time dependencies? Are there any? > > >> > > > >> > No, there is no strict build-time dependency. It's just that I don't > > >> > see it nice to have a commit for a dead code, partly for testing > > >> > purpose and partly for code consistency. But if this makes > > >> > maintenance easier, I'm happy with that, too, of course. > > >> > > >> There won't be any dead code. All of the subsystem trees are pulled > > >> into -next [0] where the build bots can operate on the patches as a > > >> whole. > > > > > > But the merge order isn't guaranteed, i.e. at the commit of other tree > > > for this new stuff, it's a dead code without merging the MFD stuff > > > beforehand. e.g. Imagine to perform the git bisection. It's not > > > about the whole tree, but about the each commit. > > > > > > And I won't be surprised if 0-day build bot gets a new feature to > > > inspect the kconfig files, spot a dead kconfig entry and warn > > > maintainers at each commit, too :) > > > > So I would prefer the whole series to go in via one tree in one go, > > because it is a series for a reason. :-) > > > > The patches do depend on each other logically even though there may > > not be hard build-time dependencies between them. It would be sort of > > good if the git history reflected that logical dependency. > > We *never* do this. Who's we? I sometimes do that, for one. I guess Takashi does that too. The tip people do that on a regular basis and I know of at least several other top-level maintainers doing it at least occasionally. > Only build-time dependencies warrant the hassle > of immutable branches and cross-subsystem committing. Patches should > be taken in via their own subsystems unless it would cause merge or > build issues if we did. I beg to differ, but whatever. In any case, I wouldn't mind it if you took the [3/3] from this series, because if there are any conflicts with it, they will be trivial to resolve. And I don't need an immutable branch with it or anything like that. Thanks, Rafael
