Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1726124 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-09-04 16:50 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-09-07 10:10 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 52 — 6 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
[PATCH v5 0/3] Dollar Cove TI PMIC support for Intel Cherry Trail Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> - 2017-09-04 16:50 +0200
[PATCH v5 2/3] platform/x86: Add support for Dollar Cove TI power button Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> - 2017-09-04 16:50 +0200
[PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> - 2017-09-04 16:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2017-09-05 09:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> - 2017-09-05 09:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> - 2017-09-05 10:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> - 2017-09-05 10:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2017-09-05 10:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2017-09-05 10:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> - 2017-09-05 10:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2017-09-05 11:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> - 2017-09-07 11:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2017-09-07 13:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2017-09-07 13:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2017-09-07 13:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> - 2017-09-07 13:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2017-09-07 14:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> - 2017-09-07 15:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2017-09-07 15:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> - 2017-09-07 13:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2017-09-07 14:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> - 2017-09-07 14:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2017-09-07 15:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> - 2017-09-07 15:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2017-09-07 16:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2017-09-05 11:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> - 2017-09-05 11:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> - 2017-09-05 12:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2017-09-06 10:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2017-09-06 12:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2017-09-06 12:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2017-09-06 13:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2017-09-07 00:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2017-09-07 09:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2017-09-07 13:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> - 2017-09-07 13:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2017-09-07 13:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2017-09-07 13:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2017-09-06 10:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> - 2017-09-06 10:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2017-09-06 11:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> - 2017-09-06 12:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2017-09-06 12:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2017-09-06 13:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2017-09-06 12:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> - 2017-09-06 13:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2017-09-06 13:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2017-09-06 16:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> - 2017-09-06 16:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2017-09-06 17:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> - 2017-09-06 17:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> - 2017-09-07 10:10 +0200
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
| From | Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-07 14:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC |
| Message-ID | <un46u-8k6-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1728176 |
On Thu, 07 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai wrote: > On Thu, 07 Sep 2017 12:53:48 +0200, > Lee Jones wrote: > > > > On Thu, 07 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 10:54:49 +0200, > > > Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 10:10:49 +0200, > > > > > Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 09:24:51 +0200, > > > > > > > Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 04 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai 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@linux.intel.com> > > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > 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@linaro.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 13:47:04 +0200, > Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> wrote: > > > On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 11:20:04 +0200, > > > Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > >> > > >> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> wrote: > > >> > This provides a new input driver for supporting the power button on > > >> > Dollar Cove TI PMIC, found on Cherrytrail-based devices. > > >> > The patch is based on the original work by Intel, found at: > > >> > https://github.com/01org/ProductionKernelQuilts > > >> > > > >> > Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=193891 > > >> > Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> > > >> > > >> Are you going to submit it via MFD? > > > > > > I really don't mind who takes what. The driver codes are small, so it > > > should be OK to go through a single tree, presumably MFD, if all > > > people agree. > > > > > > OTOH, if Lee can prepare an immutable branch, other two can go via > > > other trees, too. > > > > > > What do you guys think better? > > > > As a co-maintainer of PDx86 I prefer to go with MFD or whatever first > > patch is related to. > > -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-07 14:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC |
| Message-ID | <un4pP-8qv-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1728194 |
On Thu, 07 Sep 2017 14:28:34 +0200, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Thu, 07 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > On Thu, 07 Sep 2017 12:53:48 +0200, > > Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 07 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 10:54:49 +0200, > > > > Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 10:10:49 +0200, > > > > > > Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 09:24:51 +0200, > > > > > > > > Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 04 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai 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@linux.intel.com> > > > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > 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@linaro.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. Takashi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-07 15:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC |
| Message-ID | <un4Jc-km-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1728206 |
> > > > > > > > > > > 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@linux.intel.com> > > > > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > 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@linaro.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. 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. 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. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-07 15:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC |
| Message-ID | <un5ce-tt-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1728213 |
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@linux.intel.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > 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@linaro.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 can create such a branch by myself, and send you pull requests, if 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... > 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. > 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. thanks, Takashi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-07 16:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC |
| Message-ID | <un5OV-Y6-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1728220 |
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@linux.intel.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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@linaro.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-05 11:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC |
| Message-ID | <umhSb-t5-29@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1726539 |
On Tue, 05 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai wrote: > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 10:10:49 +0200, > Lee Jones wrote: > > > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 09:24:51 +0200, > > > Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, 04 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai 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@linux.intel.com> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> > > > > > --- > > > > > 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@linaro.org> > > > > > > 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. > > > > > IMO, it'd be great if you can carry all stuff through MFD tree; or > > > create an immutable branch (again). But how to handle it, when to do > > > it, It's all up to you guys. > > > > If there aren't any build dependencies between the patches, each of > > the patches should be applied through their own trees. What are the > > build-time dependencies? Are there any? > > No, there is no strict build-time dependency. It's just that I don't > see it nice to have a commit for a dead code, partly for testing > purpose and partly for code consistency. But if this makes > maintenance easier, I'm happy with that, too, of course. There won't be any dead code. All of the subsystem trees are pulled into -next [0] where the build bots can operate on the patches as a whole. [0] git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-05 11:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC |
| Message-ID | <umiuS-WJ-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1726567 |
On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 10:53:41 +0200, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 10:10:49 +0200, > > Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 09:24:51 +0200, > > > > Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 04 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai 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@linux.intel.com> > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > 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@linaro.org> > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > IMO, it'd be great if you can carry all stuff through MFD tree; or > > > > create an immutable branch (again). But how to handle it, when to do > > > > it, It's all up to you guys. > > > > > > If there aren't any build dependencies between the patches, each of > > > the patches should be applied through their own trees. What are the > > > build-time dependencies? Are there any? > > > > No, there is no strict build-time dependency. It's just that I don't > > see it nice to have a commit for a dead code, partly for testing > > purpose and partly for code consistency. But if this makes > > maintenance easier, I'm happy with that, too, of course. > > There won't be any dead code. All of the subsystem trees are pulled > into -next [0] where the build bots can operate on the patches as a > whole. But the merge order isn't guaranteed, i.e. at the commit of other tree for this new stuff, it's a dead code without merging the MFD stuff beforehand. e.g. Imagine to perform the git bisection. It's not about the whole tree, but about the each commit. And I won't be surprised if 0-day build bot gets a new feature to inspect the kconfig files, spot a dead kconfig entry and warn maintainers at each commit, too :) thanks, Takashi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-05 12:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC |
| Message-ID | <umjqW-1ux-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1726585 |
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> wrote: > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 10:53:41 +0200, > Lee Jones wrote: >> >> On Tue, 05 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai wrote: >> >> > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 10:10:49 +0200, >> > Lee Jones wrote: >> > > >> > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai wrote: >> > > >> > > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 09:24:51 +0200, >> > > > Lee Jones wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, 04 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai 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@linux.intel.com> >> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> >> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> >> > > > > > --- >> > > > > > 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@linaro.org> >> > > > >> > > > 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. >> > >> > >> > > > IMO, it'd be great if you can carry all stuff through MFD tree; or >> > > > create an immutable branch (again). But how to handle it, when to do >> > > > it, It's all up to you guys. >> > > >> > > If there aren't any build dependencies between the patches, each of >> > > the patches should be applied through their own trees. What are the >> > > build-time dependencies? Are there any? >> > >> > No, there is no strict build-time dependency. It's just that I don't >> > see it nice to have a commit for a dead code, partly for testing >> > purpose and partly for code consistency. But if this makes >> > maintenance easier, I'm happy with that, too, of course. >> >> There won't be any dead code. All of the subsystem trees are pulled >> into -next [0] where the build bots can operate on the patches as a >> whole. > > But the merge order isn't guaranteed, i.e. at the commit of other tree > for this new stuff, it's a dead code without merging the MFD stuff > beforehand. e.g. Imagine to perform the git bisection. It's not > about the whole tree, but about the each commit. > > And I won't be surprised if 0-day build bot gets a new feature to > inspect the kconfig files, spot a dead kconfig entry and warn > maintainers at each commit, too :) So I would prefer the whole series to go in via one tree in one go, because it is a series for a reason. :-) The patches do depend on each other logically even though there may not be hard build-time dependencies between them. It would be sort of good if the git history reflected that logical dependency. Thanks, Rafael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 10:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC |
| Message-ID | <umDpF-6TS-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1726604 |
On Tue, 05 Sep 2017, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> wrote: > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 10:53:41 +0200, > > Lee Jones wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, 05 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai wrote: > >> > >> > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 10:10:49 +0200, > >> > Lee Jones wrote: > >> > > > >> > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 09:24:51 +0200, > >> > > > Lee Jones wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, 04 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai 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@linux.intel.com> > >> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> > >> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> > >> > > > > > --- > >> > > > > > 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@linaro.org> > >> > > > > >> > > > 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. > >> > > >> > > >> > > > IMO, it'd be great if you can carry all stuff through MFD tree; or > >> > > > create an immutable branch (again). But how to handle it, when to do > >> > > > it, It's all up to you guys. > >> > > > >> > > If there aren't any build dependencies between the patches, each of > >> > > the patches should be applied through their own trees. What are the > >> > > build-time dependencies? Are there any? > >> > > >> > No, there is no strict build-time dependency. It's just that I don't > >> > see it nice to have a commit for a dead code, partly for testing > >> > purpose and partly for code consistency. But if this makes > >> > maintenance easier, I'm happy with that, too, of course. > >> > >> There won't be any dead code. All of the subsystem trees are pulled > >> into -next [0] where the build bots can operate on the patches as a > >> whole. > > > > But the merge order isn't guaranteed, i.e. at the commit of other tree > > for this new stuff, it's a dead code without merging the MFD stuff > > beforehand. e.g. Imagine to perform the git bisection. It's not > > about the whole tree, but about the each commit. > > > > And I won't be surprised if 0-day build bot gets a new feature to > > inspect the kconfig files, spot a dead kconfig entry and warn > > maintainers at each commit, too :) > > So I would prefer the whole series to go in via one tree in one go, > because it is a series for a reason. :-) > > The patches do depend on each other logically even though there may > not be hard build-time dependencies between them. It would be sort of > good if the git history reflected that logical dependency. We *never* do this. Only build-time dependencies warrant the hassle of immutable branches and cross-subsystem committing. Patches should be taken in via their own subsystems unless it would cause merge or build issues if we did. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 12:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC |
| Message-ID | <umFB7-hz-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1727193 |
On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 9:58:52 AM CEST Lee Jones wrote: > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> wrote: > > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 10:53:41 +0200, > > > Lee Jones wrote: > > >> > > >> On Tue, 05 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > >> > > >> > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 10:10:49 +0200, > > >> > Lee Jones wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 09:24:51 +0200, > > >> > > > Lee Jones wrote: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, 04 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai 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@linux.intel.com> > > >> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> > > >> > > > > > --- > > >> > > > > > 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@linaro.org> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 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. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > IMO, it'd be great if you can carry all stuff through MFD tree; or > > >> > > > create an immutable branch (again). But how to handle it, when to do > > >> > > > it, It's all up to you guys. > > >> > > > > >> > > If there aren't any build dependencies between the patches, each of > > >> > > the patches should be applied through their own trees. What are the > > >> > > build-time dependencies? Are there any? > > >> > > > >> > No, there is no strict build-time dependency. It's just that I don't > > >> > see it nice to have a commit for a dead code, partly for testing > > >> > purpose and partly for code consistency. But if this makes > > >> > maintenance easier, I'm happy with that, too, of course. > > >> > > >> There won't be any dead code. All of the subsystem trees are pulled > > >> into -next [0] where the build bots can operate on the patches as a > > >> whole. > > > > > > But the merge order isn't guaranteed, i.e. at the commit of other tree > > > for this new stuff, it's a dead code without merging the MFD stuff > > > beforehand. e.g. Imagine to perform the git bisection. It's not > > > about the whole tree, but about the each commit. > > > > > > And I won't be surprised if 0-day build bot gets a new feature to > > > inspect the kconfig files, spot a dead kconfig entry and warn > > > maintainers at each commit, too :) > > > > So I would prefer the whole series to go in via one tree in one go, > > because it is a series for a reason. :-) > > > > The patches do depend on each other logically even though there may > > not be hard build-time dependencies between them. It would be sort of > > good if the git history reflected that logical dependency. > > We *never* do this. Who's we? I sometimes do that, for one. I guess Takashi does that too. The tip people do that on a regular basis and I know of at least several other top-level maintainers doing it at least occasionally. > Only build-time dependencies warrant the hassle > of immutable branches and cross-subsystem committing. Patches should > be taken in via their own subsystems unless it would cause merge or > build issues if we did. I beg to differ, but whatever. In any case, I wouldn't mind it if you took the [3/3] from this series, because if there are any conflicts with it, they will be trivial to resolve. And I don't need an immutable branch with it or anything like that. Thanks, Rafael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 12:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC |
| Message-ID | <umG4a-sH-31@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1727315 |
On Wed, 06 Sep 2017, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 9:58:52 AM CEST Lee Jones wrote: > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 10:53:41 +0200, > > > > Lee Jones wrote: > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, 05 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 10:10:49 +0200, > > > >> > Lee Jones wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 09:24:51 +0200, > > > >> > > > Lee Jones wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, 04 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai 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@linux.intel.com> > > > >> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> > > > >> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> > > > >> > > > > > --- > > > >> > > > > > 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@linaro.org> > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > 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. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > IMO, it'd be great if you can carry all stuff through MFD tree; or > > > >> > > > create an immutable branch (again). But how to handle it, when to do > > > >> > > > it, It's all up to you guys. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > If there aren't any build dependencies between the patches, each of > > > >> > > the patches should be applied through their own trees. What are the > > > >> > > build-time dependencies? Are there any? > > > >> > > > > >> > No, there is no strict build-time dependency. It's just that I don't > > > >> > see it nice to have a commit for a dead code, partly for testing > > > >> > purpose and partly for code consistency. But if this makes > > > >> > maintenance easier, I'm happy with that, too, of course. > > > >> > > > >> There won't be any dead code. All of the subsystem trees are pulled > > > >> into -next [0] where the build bots can operate on the patches as a > > > >> whole. > > > > > > > > But the merge order isn't guaranteed, i.e. at the commit of other tree > > > > for this new stuff, it's a dead code without merging the MFD stuff > > > > beforehand. e.g. Imagine to perform the git bisection. It's not > > > > about the whole tree, but about the each commit. > > > > > > > > And I won't be surprised if 0-day build bot gets a new feature to > > > > inspect the kconfig files, spot a dead kconfig entry and warn > > > > maintainers at each commit, too :) > > > > > > So I would prefer the whole series to go in via one tree in one go, > > > because it is a series for a reason. :-) > > > > > > The patches do depend on each other logically even though there may > > > not be hard build-time dependencies between them. It would be sort of > > > good if the git history reflected that logical dependency. > > > > We *never* do this. > > Who's we? I sometimes do that, for one. I guess Takashi does that too. > The tip people do that on a regular basis and I know of at least several > other top-level maintainers doing it at least occasionally. The Maintainers who normally interact with MFD; Regulator, GPIO/Pinctrl, Power, IIO, PWM, ARM-SoC, LED, HWMON, Input MTD, PHY, Regmap, I2C, RTC, etc. > > Only build-time dependencies warrant the hassle > > of immutable branches and cross-subsystem committing. Patches should > > be taken in via their own subsystems unless it would cause merge or > > build issues if we did. > > I beg to differ, but whatever. > > In any case, I wouldn't mind it if you took the [3/3] from this series, because > if there are any conflicts with it, they will be trivial to resolve. And I > don't need an immutable branch with it or anything like that. No problem. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 13:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC |
| Message-ID | <umGdQ-wH-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1727333 |
> > In any case, I wouldn't mind it if you took the [3/3] from this series, because > > if there are any conflicts with it, they will be trivial to resolve. And I > > don't need an immutable branch with it or anything like that. > > No problem. Although you don't appear to have reviewed it? -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-07 00:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC |
| Message-ID | <umQZA-7Yw-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1727340 |
On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 12:52:09 PM CEST Lee Jones wrote: > > > In any case, I wouldn't mind it if you took the [3/3] from this series, because > > > if there are any conflicts with it, they will be trivial to resolve. And I > > > don't need an immutable branch with it or anything like that. > > > > No problem. > > Although you don't appear to have reviewed it? I have reviewed it, although I haven't sent a tag. Generally speaking, for drivers/acpi/pmic/ Reviewed-bys from Mika and Andy are sufficient (they likely are more familiar with the code in there than I am), but please feel free to add an ACK from me to it too. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-07 09:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC |
| Message-ID | <umZzP-5hJ-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1727790 |
On Thu, 07 Sep 2017, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 12:52:09 PM CEST Lee Jones wrote: > > > > In any case, I wouldn't mind it if you took the [3/3] from this series, because > > > > if there are any conflicts with it, they will be trivial to resolve. And I > > > > don't need an immutable branch with it or anything like that. > > > > > > No problem. > > > > Although you don't appear to have reviewed it? > > I have reviewed it, although I haven't sent a tag. > > Generally speaking, for drivers/acpi/pmic/ Reviewed-bys from Mika and Andy are > sufficient (they likely are more familiar with the code in there than I am), I don't see them in MAINTAINERS. I thought it was Len and yourself. > but please feel free to add an ACK from me to it too. :-) Will do, thank you. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-07 13:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC |
| Message-ID | <un2R4-7Bm-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1727974 |
On Thursday, September 7, 2017 9:39:03 AM CEST Lee Jones wrote: > On Thu, 07 Sep 2017, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 12:52:09 PM CEST Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > In any case, I wouldn't mind it if you took the [3/3] from this series, because > > > > > if there are any conflicts with it, they will be trivial to resolve. And I > > > > > don't need an immutable branch with it or anything like that. > > > > > > > > No problem. > > > > > > Although you don't appear to have reviewed it? > > > > I have reviewed it, although I haven't sent a tag. > > > > Generally speaking, for drivers/acpi/pmic/ Reviewed-bys from Mika and Andy are > > sufficient (they likely are more familiar with the code in there than I am), > > I don't see them in MAINTAINERS. I thought it was Len and yourself. I do need help with code review at least in some areas, though. Some of this information is missing from MAINTAINERS, but I guess that can be addressed in this particular case. Mika, Andy, would it be OK to add you as reviewers for drivers/acpi/pmic/ to MAINTAINERS? Thanks, Rafael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-07 13:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC |
| Message-ID | <un2R4-7Bm-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1728145 |
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 12:52:53PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, September 7, 2017 9:39:03 AM CEST Lee Jones wrote: > > On Thu, 07 Sep 2017, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 12:52:09 PM CEST Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > > In any case, I wouldn't mind it if you took the [3/3] from this series, because > > > > > > if there are any conflicts with it, they will be trivial to resolve. And I > > > > > > don't need an immutable branch with it or anything like that. > > > > > > > > > > No problem. > > > > > > > > Although you don't appear to have reviewed it? > > > > > > I have reviewed it, although I haven't sent a tag. > > > > > > Generally speaking, for drivers/acpi/pmic/ Reviewed-bys from Mika and Andy are > > > sufficient (they likely are more familiar with the code in there than I am), > > > > I don't see them in MAINTAINERS. I thought it was Len and yourself. > > I do need help with code review at least in some areas, though. > > Some of this information is missing from MAINTAINERS, but I guess that can be > addressed in this particular case. > > Mika, Andy, would it be OK to add you as reviewers for drivers/acpi/pmic/ > to MAINTAINERS? Sure, fine by me. Andy is on vacation currently so can't speak for him. I suppose he does not have anything against it, though :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-07 13:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC |
| Message-ID | <un2R5-7Bm-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1728146 |
On Thursday, September 7, 2017 1:07:26 PM CEST Mika Westerberg wrote: > On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 12:52:53PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Thursday, September 7, 2017 9:39:03 AM CEST Lee Jones wrote: > > > On Thu, 07 Sep 2017, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 12:52:09 PM CEST Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > > > In any case, I wouldn't mind it if you took the [3/3] from this series, because > > > > > > > if there are any conflicts with it, they will be trivial to resolve. And I > > > > > > > don't need an immutable branch with it or anything like that. > > > > > > > > > > > > No problem. > > > > > > > > > > Although you don't appear to have reviewed it? > > > > > > > > I have reviewed it, although I haven't sent a tag. > > > > > > > > Generally speaking, for drivers/acpi/pmic/ Reviewed-bys from Mika and Andy are > > > > sufficient (they likely are more familiar with the code in there than I am), > > > > > > I don't see them in MAINTAINERS. I thought it was Len and yourself. > > > > I do need help with code review at least in some areas, though. > > > > Some of this information is missing from MAINTAINERS, but I guess that can be > > addressed in this particular case. > > > > Mika, Andy, would it be OK to add you as reviewers for drivers/acpi/pmic/ > > to MAINTAINERS? > > Sure, fine by me. Andy is on vacation currently so can't speak for him. > I suppose he does not have anything against it, though :) OK, thanks!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-07 13:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC |
| Message-ID | <un30K-7Eu-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1728148 |
On Thu, 07 Sep 2017, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, September 7, 2017 1:07:26 PM CEST Mika Westerberg wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 12:52:53PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Thursday, September 7, 2017 9:39:03 AM CEST Lee Jones wrote: > > > > On Thu, 07 Sep 2017, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 12:52:09 PM CEST Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > > > > In any case, I wouldn't mind it if you took the [3/3] from this series, because > > > > > > > > if there are any conflicts with it, they will be trivial to resolve. And I > > > > > > > > don't need an immutable branch with it or anything like that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > Although you don't appear to have reviewed it? > > > > > > > > > > I have reviewed it, although I haven't sent a tag. > > > > > > > > > > Generally speaking, for drivers/acpi/pmic/ Reviewed-bys from Mika and Andy are > > > > > sufficient (they likely are more familiar with the code in there than I am), > > > > > > > > I don't see them in MAINTAINERS. I thought it was Len and yourself. > > > > > > I do need help with code review at least in some areas, though. > > > > > > Some of this information is missing from MAINTAINERS, but I guess that can be > > > addressed in this particular case. > > > > > > Mika, Andy, would it be OK to add you as reviewers for drivers/acpi/pmic/ > > > to MAINTAINERS? > > > > Sure, fine by me. Andy is on vacation currently so can't speak for him. > > I suppose he does not have anything against it, though :) > > OK, thanks! +1 Thanks Rafael, that should make things easier in the future. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 10:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC |
| Message-ID | <umDpE-6TS-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1726585 |
On Tue, 05 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai wrote: > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 10:53:41 +0200, > Lee Jones wrote: > > > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 10:10:49 +0200, > > > Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 09:24:51 +0200, > > > > > Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 04 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai 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@linux.intel.com> > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > 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@linaro.org> > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > IMO, it'd be great if you can carry all stuff through MFD tree; or > > > > > create an immutable branch (again). But how to handle it, when to do > > > > > it, It's all up to you guys. > > > > > > > > If there aren't any build dependencies between the patches, each of > > > > the patches should be applied through their own trees. What are the > > > > build-time dependencies? Are there any? > > > > > > No, there is no strict build-time dependency. It's just that I don't > > > see it nice to have a commit for a dead code, partly for testing > > > purpose and partly for code consistency. But if this makes > > > maintenance easier, I'm happy with that, too, of course. > > > > There won't be any dead code. All of the subsystem trees are pulled > > into -next [0] where the build bots can operate on the patches as a > > whole. > > But the merge order isn't guaranteed, i.e. at the commit of other tree > for this new stuff, it's a dead code without merging the MFD stuff > beforehand. e.g. Imagine to perform the git bisection. It's not > about the whole tree, but about the each commit. Only *building* is relevant for bisection until the whole feature lands. No one is going to bisect the function of a feature until it is present. So long as there aren't any build-time dependencies then we're good, > And I won't be surprised if 0-day build bot gets a new feature to > inspect the kconfig files, spot a dead kconfig entry and warn > maintainers at each commit, too :) 0-days don't check for that and static analysers only check releases. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 10:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC |
| Message-ID | <umDSG-7ph-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1727191 |
On Wed, 06 Sep 2017 09:54:44 +0200, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 10:53:41 +0200, > > Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 10:10:49 +0200, > > > > Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 05 Sep 2017 09:24:51 +0200, > > > > > > Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 04 Sep 2017, Takashi Iwai 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@linux.intel.com> > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > 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@linaro.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMO, it'd be great if you can carry all stuff through MFD tree; or > > > > > > create an immutable branch (again). But how to handle it, when to do > > > > > > it, It's all up to you guys. > > > > > > > > > > If there aren't any build dependencies between the patches, each of > > > > > the patches should be applied through their own trees. What are the > > > > > build-time dependencies? Are there any? > > > > > > > > No, there is no strict build-time dependency. It's just that I don't > > > > see it nice to have a commit for a dead code, partly for testing > > > > purpose and partly for code consistency. But if this makes > > > > maintenance easier, I'm happy with that, too, of course. > > > > > > There won't be any dead code. All of the subsystem trees are pulled > > > into -next [0] where the build bots can operate on the patches as a > > > whole. > > > > But the merge order isn't guaranteed, i.e. at the commit of other tree > > for this new stuff, it's a dead code without merging the MFD stuff > > beforehand. e.g. Imagine to perform the git bisection. It's not > > about the whole tree, but about the each commit. > > Only *building* is relevant for bisection until the whole feature > lands. Why only building? When merging through several tress, commits for the same series are scattered completely although they are softly tied. This sucks when you perform git bisection, e.g. if you have an issue in the middle of the patch series. It still works, but it jumps unnecessarily too far away and back before reaching to the point, and kconfig appears / disappears inconsistently (the dependent kconfig gone in the middle). And, this is about the release kernel (4.15 or whatever). Basically, my complaint here comes with my user's hat on. It *is* indeed worse than a straight application of patches in some levels. It's unavoidable if you do in that way. OTOH, with maintainer's hat on, I do agree with that it'll make things often easier. Judging with these merits and demerits, I find it's acceptable, too. > No one is going to bisect the function of a feature until it > is present. So long as there aren't any build-time dependencies then > we're good, > > > And I won't be surprised if 0-day build bot gets a new feature to > > inspect the kconfig files, spot a dead kconfig entry and warn > > maintainers at each commit, too :) > > > 0-days don't check for that and static analysers only check releases. How can you guarantee that 0-days will not do that in future? I learned that I shouldn't be too naive about 0-day bot facility :) In anyway, as I already mentioned, I'm fine with taking changes individually in each tree. No need for further bike-shedding. thanks, Takashi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web