On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 5:36 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 2/15/21 4:29 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 4:22 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> On 2/15/21 3:54 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 3:36 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> On 2/11/21 9:16 PM, Maximilian Luz wrote: > >>>>> This series adds a driver to provide platform profile support on 5th- > >>>>> and later generation Microsoft Surface devices with a Surface System > >>>>> Aggregator Module. On those devices, the platform profile can be used to > >>>>> influence cooling behavior and power consumption. > >>>>> > >>>>> To achieve this, a new platform profile is introduced: the > >>>>> 'balanced-performance' profile. > >>>>> > >>>>> In addition, a couple of fix-ups are performed: > >>>>> - Hide CONFIG_ACPI_PLATFORM_PROFILE and change drivers so that it is > >>>>> selected instead of depended on. > >>>>> - Fix some references to documentation in a comment. > >>>>> > >>>>> Note: This series (or more specifically "platform/surface: Add platform > >>>>> profile driver") depends on the "platform/surface: Add Surface > >>>>> Aggregator device registry" series. > >>>>> > >>>>> Changes in v2: > >>>>> - Introduce new 'balanced-performance' platform profile and change > >>>>> profile mapping in driver. > >>>>> - Perform some fix-ups for the ACPI platform profile implementation: > >>>>> - Fix some references to documentation in a comment. > >>>>> - Hide CONFIG_ACPI_PLATFORM_PROFILE > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, the entire series looks good to me, so for the series: > >>>> > >>>> Reviewed-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> > >>>> Rafael, can you (once 5.12-rc1 is out) pick 1-3/4 and then provide a > >>>> stable branch for me to merge? > >>> > >>> Since [1-3/4] appear to be uncontroversial, so IMO it would be better > >>> to merge them during the merge window, so they are present in > >>> 5.12-rc1. > >> > >> So I just realized one problem with this plan, patch 1/4 depends > >> on (modifies) Kconfig bits which are only in my tree / my 5.12 pull-req > >> (which I send out earlier today). > > > > That should be fine. > > > > I will be sending the first batch of pull requests tomorrow. Then I > > will wait for them to be merged and I will merge the mainline back at > > that point. The new patches will be applied on top of that merge, so > > if your 5.12 material is included in it, they should build without > > problems. > > Ok, that sounds good to me. In fact, my pull requests are ready right now, so I will be sending them shortly, but that doesn\t change the subsequent steps.
