Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1550242 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH V9 0/3] irqchip: qcom: Add IRQ combiner driver

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH V9 0/3] irqchip: qcom: Add IRQ combiner driver "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> - 2017-01-03 23:00 +0100
    Re: [PATCH V9 0/3] irqchip: qcom: Add IRQ combiner driver Agustin Vega-Frias <agustinv@codeaurora.org> - 2017-01-04 13:40 +0100
    Re: [PATCH V9 0/3] irqchip: qcom: Add IRQ combiner driver Agustin Vega-Frias <agustinv@codeaurora.org> - 2017-01-16 15:10 +0100
      Re: [PATCH V9 0/3] irqchip: qcom: Add IRQ combiner driver Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> - 2017-01-16 15:20 +0100
        Re: [PATCH V9 0/3] irqchip: qcom: Add IRQ combiner driver Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com> - 2017-01-16 15:50 +0100
          Re: [PATCH V9 0/3] irqchip: qcom: Add IRQ combiner driver Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> - 2017-01-16 16:00 +0100

#1550242 — Re: [PATCH V9 0/3] irqchip: qcom: Add IRQ combiner driver

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Agustin Vega-Frias
<agustinv@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there any more feedback on this beyond Lorenzo's suggestion to drop
> the conditional check on the first patch?
> How can we move forward on this series?

Essentially, I need to convince myself that patches [1-2/3] are fine
which hasn't happened yet.

Thanks,
Rafael

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1550734

On 2017-01-03 16:56, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Agustin Vega-Frias
> <agustinv@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Is there any more feedback on this beyond Lorenzo's suggestion to drop
>> the conditional check on the first patch?
>> How can we move forward on this series?
> 
> Essentially, I need to convince myself that patches [1-2/3] are fine
> which hasn't happened yet.
> 

Thanks Rafael, I'll hold on for your feedback.

> Thanks,
> Rafael

-- 
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. on behalf of the Qualcomm 
Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a 
Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1559766

Hi Rafael,

On 2017-01-03 16:56, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Agustin Vega-Frias
> <agustinv@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Is there any more feedback on this beyond Lorenzo's suggestion to drop
>> the conditional check on the first patch?
>> How can we move forward on this series?
> 
> Essentially, I need to convince myself that patches [1-2/3] are fine
> which hasn't happened yet.

Pinging again. Do you have any questions that might help with your
review? I have some minor changes I have to make to the driver itself
(patch 3) and I'd like to submit any changes you might want along with
those.

Thanks,
Agustin

> 
> Thanks,
> Rafael

-- 
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. on behalf of the Qualcomm 
Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a 
Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1559770

On 16/01/17 14:07, Agustin Vega-Frias wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
> 
> On 2017-01-03 16:56, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Agustin Vega-Frias
>> <agustinv@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Is there any more feedback on this beyond Lorenzo's suggestion to drop
>>> the conditional check on the first patch?
>>> How can we move forward on this series?
>>
>> Essentially, I need to convince myself that patches [1-2/3] are fine
>> which hasn't happened yet.
> 
> Pinging again. Do you have any questions that might help with your
> review? I have some minor changes I have to make to the driver itself
> (patch 3) and I'd like to submit any changes you might want along with
> those.

I'd like to add that these two initial patches are now a prerequisite
for Hanjun's series, so it'd be good to have an idea of where we're
going on that front.

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1559801

On 2017/1/16 22:14, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 16/01/17 14:07, Agustin Vega-Frias wrote:
>> Hi Rafael,
>>
>> On 2017-01-03 16:56, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Agustin Vega-Frias
>>> <agustinv@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Is there any more feedback on this beyond Lorenzo's suggestion to drop
>>>> the conditional check on the first patch?
>>>> How can we move forward on this series?
>>> Essentially, I need to convince myself that patches [1-2/3] are fine
>>> which hasn't happened yet.
>> Pinging again. Do you have any questions that might help with your
>> review? I have some minor changes I have to make to the driver itself
>> (patch 3) and I'd like to submit any changes you might want along with
>> those.
> I'd like to add that these two initial patches are now a prerequisite
> for Hanjun's series, so it'd be good to have an idea of where we're
> going on that front.

Is it helpful to test patch [1-2/3] on x86 machines (with different firmware) and
an IA64 machine (surely a different version of firmware :) ) with Lorenzo's suggestion
of removing  #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_GENERIC_GSI for is_gsi()? If yes, I can do that as
I have such machines.

Thanks
Hanjun

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1559814

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:41:26PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 2017/1/16 22:14, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On 16/01/17 14:07, Agustin Vega-Frias wrote:
> >> Hi Rafael,
> >>
> >> On 2017-01-03 16:56, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Agustin Vega-Frias
> >>> <agustinv@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> Is there any more feedback on this beyond Lorenzo's suggestion to drop
> >>>> the conditional check on the first patch?
> >>>> How can we move forward on this series?
> >>> Essentially, I need to convince myself that patches [1-2/3] are fine
> >>> which hasn't happened yet.
> >> Pinging again. Do you have any questions that might help with your
> >> review? I have some minor changes I have to make to the driver itself
> >> (patch 3) and I'd like to submit any changes you might want along with
> >> those.
> > I'd like to add that these two initial patches are now a prerequisite
> > for Hanjun's series, so it'd be good to have an idea of where we're
> > going on that front.
> 
> Is it helpful to test patch [1-2/3] on x86 machines (with different firmware) and
> an IA64 machine (surely a different version of firmware :) ) with Lorenzo's suggestion
> of removing  #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_GENERIC_GSI for is_gsi()? If yes, I can do that as
> I have such machines.

Well, it is always helpful, as helpful as getting this change into -next
as soon as possible, at the end of the day it is quite simple, as soon
as (hopefully never) we find some firmware out there (x86/ia64) that
misused the resource source field in the interrupt descriptor we will
have to add that guard back, it is as simple as that.

Thanks,
Lorenzo

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web