Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] mfd: Add support for Cherry Trail Dollar Cove TI PMIC

[Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>]

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