From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hanjun Guo Subject: Re: [PATCH V9 0/3] irqchip: qcom: Add IRQ combiner driver Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 22:41:26 +0800 Message-ID: <587CDB96.9000906@huawei.com> References: <1481753438-3905-1-git-send-email-agustinv@codeaurora.org> <16e3b40407e8072dd5b15bf7e65afb18@codeaurora.org> <266105963441d1cdddeaf40c4b78c239@codeaurora.org> <8587b5ab-59b1-feb7-09d9-7ade6d433a4c@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <8587b5ab-59b1-feb7-09d9-7ade6d433a4c@arm.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Marc Zyngier , Agustin Vega-Frias , "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: harba@codeaurora.org, Lorenzo Pieralisi , Jason Cooper , Graeme Gregory , Jon Masters , Timur Tabi , Mark Salter , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , rjwysocki@gmail.com, astone@redhat.com, ACPI Devel Maling List , Mark Langsdorf , Christopher Covington , Andy Gross , Thomas Gleixner , Charles Garcia Tobin , Al Stone , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Len Brown List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On 2017/1/16 22:14, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 16/01/17 14:07, Agustin Vega-Frias wrote: >> Hi Rafael, >> >> On 2017-01-03 16:56, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Agustin Vega-Frias >>> wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Is there any more feedback on this beyond Lorenzo's suggestion to drop >>>> the conditional check on the first patch? >>>> How can we move forward on this series? >>> Essentially, I need to convince myself that patches [1-2/3] are fine >>> which hasn't happened yet. >> Pinging again. Do you have any questions that might help with your >> review? I have some minor changes I have to make to the driver itself >> (patch 3) and I'd like to submit any changes you might want along with >> those. > I'd like to add that these two initial patches are now a prerequisite > for Hanjun's series, so it'd be good to have an idea of where we're > going on that front. Is it helpful to test patch [1-2/3] on x86 machines (with different firmware) and an IA64 machine (surely a different version of firmware :) ) with Lorenzo's suggestion of removing #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_GENERIC_GSI for is_gsi()? If yes, I can do that as I have such machines. Thanks Hanjun