From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 11:24:11 +0000 Subject: [PATCH v10 00/21] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1 In-Reply-To: <20150324220253.9595AC407F8@trevor.secretlab.ca> References: <1426077587-1561-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <20150318190509.GM10863@arm.com> <550A4BFD.4070804@huawei.com> <20150319101727.GC24556@red-moon> <20150319193927.GG4751@arm.com> <20150324220253.9595AC407F8@trevor.secretlab.ca> Message-ID: <20150325112410.GA24636@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:02:53PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote: > On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 19:39:27 +0000 , Will Deacon > wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:17:27AM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > > Not only that, Sudeep has a patch to consolidate DT and ACPI SMP code, > > > I am working on it, I do not think it should be a blocking point, patch > > > coming asap on top of your series. > > > > Well, I don't really want to merge the series without those patches so I > > do think it blocks the code from getting into mainline. > > Really? It's a pretty minor duplication problem and it's been identified > as something requiring refactoring to both the ACPI and DT code. It > isn't at all dangerous. Why is this a blocking point? Because I don't really see a valid excuse not to get this right first time around. Lorenzo already has patches on top, so we just need a co-ordinated review effort. I wouldn't accept another patch series that needed minor rework (which by its very nature is easily addressed), so why should ACPI be treated any differently? Will