From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] driver core: Fix some issues related to device links Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 14:22:47 +0100 Message-ID: <20190131132247.GA6837@kroah.com> References: <2493187.oiOpCWJBV7@aspire.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: LKML , Linux PM , Ulf Hansson , Daniel Vetter , Lukas Wunner , Andrzej Hajda , Russell King - ARM Linux , Lucas Stach , Linus Walleij , Thierry Reding , Laurent Pinchart List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:09:51AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 12:25 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > Hi Greg at al, > > > > Recently I have been looking at the device links code because of the > > recent discussion on possibly using them in the DRM subsystem (see for > > example https://marc.info/?l=linux-pm&m=154832771905309&w=2) and I have > > found a few issues in that code which should be addressed by this patch > > series. Please refer to the patch changelogs for details. > > > > None of the problems addressed here should be manifesting themselves in > > mainline kernel today, but if there are more device links users in the > > future, they most likely will be encountered sooner or later. Also they > > need to be fixed for the DRM use case to be supported IMO. > > > > This series does not fix all issues in device links that have become > > apparent (generally speaking, the idea of returning an existing link > > in case there is one already for the given consumer-supplier pair > > doesn't play well with stateful links and their flags), so there will > > be a follow-up series of patches to clean that up. Still, I don't see > > a reason to sit on these fixes while working on the other patches, so > > here they go. > > Any concerns regarding this lot? > > [Please note that patch 5 in the series was replaced with the v2 at > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10781205/] > > If not, and if you don't mind, I would like to queue it up next week, > possibly along with the follow-up material posted on Monday > (https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/2405639.4es7pRLqn0@aspire.rjw.lan/) if > that is not problematic, so it gets some linux-next coverage before > the next merge window. Can I queue it up in my tree, given that I have a number of other driver core patches in there, and I don't know how the merge issues will be if we start to diverge. Or do you need this for some other work? thanks, greg k-h