From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] arm64: UEFI support Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 07:56:20 -0700 Message-ID: <535FBD94.9040101@zytor.com> References: <1398442154-19974-1-git-send-email-leif.lindholm@linaro.org> <20140429102817.GE17007@arm.com> <20140429114356.GK26088@console-pimps.org> <20140429134726.GH17007@arm.com> <20140429144713.GL26088@console-pimps.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140429144713.GL26088-HNK1S37rvNbeXh+fF434Mdi2O/JbrIOy@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Matt Fleming , Catalin Marinas Cc: Leif Lindholm , "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" , "msalter-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org" , "grant.likely-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org" , "roy.franz-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org" , "ard.biesheuvel-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org" , Mark Rutland , "linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Stephen Rothwell , Linus Torvalds List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On 04/29/2014 07:47 AM, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Tue, 29 Apr, at 02:47:28PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: >> >> Waiting for the tip/x86/efi to be merged first is not a problem. We >> also need a stable base for testing the arm64 UEFI series, so I assume >> this series can be based onto tip/x86/efi (would such branch be rebased >> before hitting mainline?). > > tip/x86/efi is unlikely to be rebased. Certainly with dependencies like > this there would have to be a really good reason to rebase it. > >> Given that Leif's series contains both generic efi and arm64 patches, >> what's your preference for merging them? I'm happy to add my ack and >> they go via your tree (or the other way around). > > I'm happy either way, though if I take them through my tree (and > subsequently through tip) you won't have to worry about the merge window > rigmarole, which is a plus. > > So, eveyone happy for me to take these with Catalin's Acked-by? > I'm wondering if it would be better to organize it into a separate topic branch. We can still take it through tip, if you want, but it would be better than putting it all into one tree. -hpa From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hpa@zytor.com (H. Peter Anvin) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 07:56:20 -0700 Subject: [PATCH v2 00/10] arm64: UEFI support In-Reply-To: <20140429144713.GL26088@console-pimps.org> References: <1398442154-19974-1-git-send-email-leif.lindholm@linaro.org> <20140429102817.GE17007@arm.com> <20140429114356.GK26088@console-pimps.org> <20140429134726.GH17007@arm.com> <20140429144713.GL26088@console-pimps.org> Message-ID: <535FBD94.9040101@zytor.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 04/29/2014 07:47 AM, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Tue, 29 Apr, at 02:47:28PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: >> >> Waiting for the tip/x86/efi to be merged first is not a problem. We >> also need a stable base for testing the arm64 UEFI series, so I assume >> this series can be based onto tip/x86/efi (would such branch be rebased >> before hitting mainline?). > > tip/x86/efi is unlikely to be rebased. Certainly with dependencies like > this there would have to be a really good reason to rebase it. > >> Given that Leif's series contains both generic efi and arm64 patches, >> what's your preference for merging them? I'm happy to add my ack and >> they go via your tree (or the other way around). > > I'm happy either way, though if I take them through my tree (and > subsequently through tip) you won't have to worry about the merge window > rigmarole, which is a plus. > > So, eveyone happy for me to take these with Catalin's Acked-by? > I'm wondering if it would be better to organize it into a separate topic branch. We can still take it through tip, if you want, but it would be better than putting it all into one tree. -hpa From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758081AbaD2O5I (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2014 10:57:08 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:33997 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753824AbaD2O5F (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2014 10:57:05 -0400 Message-ID: <535FBD94.9040101@zytor.com> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 07:56:20 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matt Fleming , Catalin Marinas CC: Leif Lindholm , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "msalter@redhat.com" , "grant.likely@linaro.org" , "roy.franz@linaro.org" , "ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org" , Mark Rutland , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , Stephen Rothwell , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] arm64: UEFI support References: <1398442154-19974-1-git-send-email-leif.lindholm@linaro.org> <20140429102817.GE17007@arm.com> <20140429114356.GK26088@console-pimps.org> <20140429134726.GH17007@arm.com> <20140429144713.GL26088@console-pimps.org> In-Reply-To: <20140429144713.GL26088@console-pimps.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 04/29/2014 07:47 AM, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Tue, 29 Apr, at 02:47:28PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: >> >> Waiting for the tip/x86/efi to be merged first is not a problem. We >> also need a stable base for testing the arm64 UEFI series, so I assume >> this series can be based onto tip/x86/efi (would such branch be rebased >> before hitting mainline?). > > tip/x86/efi is unlikely to be rebased. Certainly with dependencies like > this there would have to be a really good reason to rebase it. > >> Given that Leif's series contains both generic efi and arm64 patches, >> what's your preference for merging them? I'm happy to add my ack and >> they go via your tree (or the other way around). > > I'm happy either way, though if I take them through my tree (and > subsequently through tip) you won't have to worry about the merge window > rigmarole, which is a plus. > > So, eveyone happy for me to take these with Catalin's Acked-by? > I'm wondering if it would be better to organize it into a separate topic branch. We can still take it through tip, if you want, but it would be better than putting it all into one tree. -hpa