From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon) Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 12:09:30 +0100 Subject: [PATCHv5 0/5] arm/arm64: Unify PSCI client support In-Reply-To: References: <1438353980-7611-1-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com> <20150803143703.GH10501@arm.com> Message-ID: <20150805110930.GE6092@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 08:41:31AM +0100, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 03:46:15PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > >> This series unifies the 32-bit and 64-bit PSCI client code, moving the bulk of > >> the FW invocation and probing out to a common location in drivers/firmware. The > >> bulk of the PSCI 0.2 cleanups have hit mainline now, so this is just the > >> unification portion. > >> > >> This results in a reasonable saving in terms of lines of code, and will allow > >> for PSCI 1.0 support to be unified form the beginning, avoiding further > >> duplication. > >> > >> Since v4 [1]: > >> * Apply Rob Herring's ack > >> * Rebase to v4.2-rc2 to handle a trivial conflict > >> * Reorder the series to keep arch/arm patches together > >> Since v3 [2]: > >> * Drop the PSCI 0.2 patches as they're in mainline > >> * s/__pa/virt_to_idmap/ from Grygorii Strashko > >> * Use macros for Calxeda CPU_SUSPEND parameters > >> > >> Russell, are you happy with the arch/arm patches? If so, are you happy for them > >> to go via another tree, or would you prefer that I set up a stable branch for > >> merging? > >> > >> I was under the impression that you had already taken Grygorii's patch but I > >> couldn't spot it in any branches. I can drop that if you already have it. > > > > I've been looking at merging this, but it's a tad fiddly touching all of > > arm, arm64 and drivers. One way to do it would be: > > > > (1) I create a branch containing patches 1,2 and 5 based on -rc2 and > > merge that into the arm64/for-next/core branch. There's a minor > > conflict, but it's easy to resolve. > > > > (2) I create another branch, which is just the branch merged in (1) + > > patches 3 and 4 on top. I send a pull request for that to rmk. > > > > (3) Torvalds will get the minor conflict resolved in (1) when he merges > > the arm and arm64 trees. > > > > If we're not comfortable with (3), then the whole lot could go via > > arm-soc instead (including the conflict resolution). > > > > Russell, Olof, any preferences? > > Wouldn't it be easiest to just get acks on patch 3 and 4 and just > merge it all through your tree? That would work if Russell is ok with it (it needs his acks). Russell: would you prefer to ack 3+4 and have me take them via the arm64 tree or instead have me send you a pull request with a conflict resolution for Torvalds? Yet another option is to postpone the arch/arm/ part to 4.4. Will