On Thu, 07 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai wrote: > On Thu, 07 Sep 2017 15:00:01 +0200, > Lee Jones 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please don't. Just collect all the Acks you have received and sent > > > > > > > > out the set again changing [PATCH] for [RESEND]. Only if there > > > > > > > > haven't been any code changes of course. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You seem to have applied the patches in some branch, but still do I > > > > > > > need to resend the whole patches? > > > > > > > > > > > > That's up to the Platform Maintainers. > > > > > > > > > > > > Since the MFD and ACPI are applied, you do not need to resend those. > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, was patch 2/3 applied? I miss your notification mail. > > > > > > > > > > > > Patch 2 needs to be applied into the Platform tree. > > > > > > > > > > > > Since there are no deps between the patches, they should be applied > > > > > > into their own trees (as previously discussed). I only applied the > > > > > > ACPI patch because Rafael asked me nicely. Normally this should have > > > > > > gone in separately too. > > > > > > > > > > Andy already expressed his preference about the patch going through > > > > > MFD tree in the v5 thread. Below is the excerpt. > > > > > > > > If Andy is happy for me to apply the patch without an immutable > > > > branch, then I'll take it. But as I've already said, this it > > > > non-optimal. > > > > > > > > There is no reason why it can't be taken in via the Platform tree. > > > > Nothing depends on it and it depends on nothing, since it is new > > > > code. > > > > > > That approach is also far from optimal, too, as Rafael and I > > > explained. > > > > That's just my point. This approach is optimal. > > > > The alternative is that I (or someone else) jumps through the required > > hoops to create an immutable branch. As a one off, it's not actually > > that big of a deal. However, if I do it for you, I have to do it for > > every submitter, else it's not fair to them. > > Lee, that's an overreaction. No one would think that I'm special even > if you would do that :) I'm not saying you'd be special. I'm saying if I do it for one, I have to do it for others. > I can create such a branch by myself, and send you pull requests, if That is also an acceptable solution. > it's a preferred way. That's no problem. It'd be much less time than > discussing in a too lengthy thread, honestly speaking. But maybe the > problem isn't that... The problem isn't time in the first instance. It's the attempt to avoid setting a precedence and for this to become the norm. > > MFD patch-sets inherently cross subsystem boundaries, which means I > > would end up taking many more patches than I do already. Subsequently > > the per-cycle MFD pull-request exponentially grows in size, as does my > > work load. > > Yeah, I understand that. OTOH, I don't understand the reason to > refuse the IB as much possible -- there are several ways to manage > that more easily. > > For example, you can keep a persistent branch that can be branched off > at any time for a new IB, while keeping another branch for regular, > rather unstable patch applications. For linux-next, you can provide > the temporary merged branch, too. It's a way some trees deploy. Yes, I am aware that some repos split themselves up into immutable branches, which can be independently pulled from. They clearly have more spare time than I do. These branches are usually only split up by topic within their own subject area/subsystem. They tend not to be full of cross-sub system patch-sets. > > This is the way we've been working for years, and it works really > > well. I'm not about to change something which isn't broken, just to > > avoid the really tiny corner-case you described before. > > I'd disagree about it being a tiny corner-case. It's fundamental to > provide a solid code basis which user can test / development on. If > we do release kernels more frequently, it shouldn't be a problem. > (e.g. for a fix between RC's, it's fine to merge through individual > trees.) But if the merge will be done first after 3 months, no one > can guarantee what would happen in these 3 months. That's why we need > the solid merge point to begin with. It allows a way to debug for > potential breakage after that point. I agree. Which is exactly what the current release model provides: All patches get dumped into a pile and tagged (-rc1), then developers get ~8 weeks to test their work and spot issues created by the merge and have a chance to fix any problems found prior to final release. It is this final release which forms the solid code base which you speak of. I haven't seen any issues that would warrant the over-the-top cautionary steps which you suggest, where IMHO the maintenance burden far outweighs the potential benefit. Right, this really is enough now. /out -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
