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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1512216 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v7 REPOST 0/9] CPUs capacity information for heterogeneous systems

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 v7 REPOST 0/9] CPUs capacity information for  heterogeneous systems Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> - 2016-10-30 22:30 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v7 REPOST 0/9] CPUs capacity information for  heterogeneous systems Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> - 2016-11-03 06:40 +0100

#1512216 — Re: [PATCH v7 REPOST 0/9] CPUs capacity information for heterogeneous systems

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 04:46:41PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:
> I'm thus now assuming that everybody is OK with the patches and that they can
> be queued for 4.10 (we certainly need this plumbing at this point). Please
> speak if my assumption is wrong (and provide feedback! :).
> Otherwise I'm going to:
> 
>  - use Russell's patching system for patches 2 and 8
>  - ask Sudeep to pull patches 3,5,6 and 7
>  - ask Catalin/Will to pull patches 1,4 and 9

I'm happy to queue patches 1, 4 and 9 for 4.10 (though it might have
been easier for the whole series to go through arm-soc).

> Do you think we might get into trouble splitting the merge process this way?

Probably not. The only minor downside is that I have to grab a new DT
for Juno from Sudeep to test the patches. Not an issue, though.

-- 
Catalin

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1514296

Hi Catalin,

On 30/10/16 14:22, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 04:46:41PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > I'm thus now assuming that everybody is OK with the patches and that they can
> > be queued for 4.10 (we certainly need this plumbing at this point). Please
> > speak if my assumption is wrong (and provide feedback! :).
> > Otherwise I'm going to:
> > 
> >  - use Russell's patching system for patches 2 and 8
> >  - ask Sudeep to pull patches 3,5,6 and 7
> >  - ask Catalin/Will to pull patches 1,4 and 9
> 
> I'm happy to queue patches 1, 4 and 9 for 4.10 (though it might have
> been easier for the whole series to go through arm-soc).
> 
> > Do you think we might get into trouble splitting the merge process this way?
> 
> Probably not. The only minor downside is that I have to grab a new DT
> for Juno from Sudeep to test the patches. Not an issue, though.
> 

Thanks and apologies if merging through different trees generates some
confusion.

I updated arm patches to address Russell's comments. I did the same for
arm64. I'll reply with the updated version, so you can see if it looks
good to you as well. In case it is OK, I already updated the for-arm64
branch with the new version:
 
 git://linux-arm.org/linux-jl.git upstream/default_caps_for-arm64 

Best,

- Juri

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web