From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Timur Tabi Subject: Re: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH V2 1/4] ACPI / CPPC: Optimize PCC Read Write operations Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 14:48:03 -0600 Message-ID: <56A68A03.4090101@codeaurora.org> References: <1453511240-20792-1-git-send-email-pprakash@codeaurora.org> <1453511240-20792-2-git-send-email-pprakash@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:52913 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933140AbcAYUsH (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jan 2016 15:48:07 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Ashwin Chaugule Cc: Prashanth Prakash , linux acpi , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linaro ACPI Mailman List Ashwin Chaugule wrote: > Prashanth has been doing the right thing all along. I was CC'd on all > his patchwork, but you changed it (and removed me) while replying. I did not remove your CC:. I can't explain it, but the patch "[Linaro-acpi] [PATCH V2 1/4] ACPI / CPPC: Optimize PCC Read Write operations" in my inbox does not list you on the CC: This is what the header says: From: Prashanth Prakash To: rjw@rjwysocki.net Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 18:07:17 -0700 Message-Id: <1453511240-20792-2-git-send-email-pprakash@codeaurora.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.8.2.1 In-Reply-To: <1453511240-20792-1-git-send-email-pprakash@codeaurora.org> References: <1453511240-20792-1-git-send-email-pprakash@codeaurora.org> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Prashanth Prakash , linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org Subject: [Linaro-acpi] [PATCH V2 1/4] ACPI / CPPC: Optimize PCC Read Write operations X-BeenThere: linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org When I look at the spinics.net archive, I see you are on it: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-acpi/msg63274.html I do not understand why my email does not have your CC: on it. > Unless Rafael thinks otherwise, I see no major issues in V2, so there > is no need for a respin. I think stripping away the __iomem is wrong. The whole point behind the 'sparse' tool is to catch invalid accesses to I/O memory. When you typecast it away, then prevent sparse from catching those problem.