On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 07:34:44PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 02:41:25PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Currently both intel_scu_ipc.c and intel_pmc_ipc.c implement the same SCU > > IPC communications with minor differences. This duplication does not make > > much sense so this series reworks the two drivers so that there is only a > > single implementation of the SCU IPC. In addition to that the API will be > > updated to take SCU instance pointer as an argument, and most of the > > callers will be converted to this new API. The old API is left there but > > the plan is to get rid the callers and then the old API as well (this is > > something we are working with Andy Shevchenko). > > > > The intel_pmc_ipc.c is then moved under MFD which suits better for this > > kind of a driver that pretty much sets up the SCU IPC and then creates a > > bunch of platform devices for the things sitting behind the PMC. The driver > > is renamed to intel_pmc_bxt.c which should follow the existing conventions > > under drivers/mfd (and it is only meant for Intel Broxton derivatives). > > > > Previous version of the series: > > > > https://www.spinics.net/lists/platform-driver-x86/msg20359.html > > > > Changes from the previous version: > > > > * Update changelog of patch 16 according to what the patch actually does. > > * Add kernel-doc for struct intel_soc_pmic. > > * Move octal permission patch to be before MFD conversion. > > * Convert the intel_pmc_bxt.c to MFD APIs whilst it is being moved under > > drivers/mfd. > > Hmm... I didn't see you appended Lee's ACKs. I thought those were for his own reference: For my own reference: Acked-for-MFD-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> I can add them if that's not the case. > > I'm including all x86 maintainers just to be sure they are aware of this as > > I'm not sure if x86@xxxxxxxxxx reaches them all. Let me know if you have > > issues with this series. > > > > I would prefer this to be merged through platform/x86 or MFD trees assuming > > there are no objections. > > I'm almost reviewed it (few patches left which I plan to do soon), I'm fine if > it goes via other tree. Thanks a lot for the review!
