From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: joshc@ni.com (Josh Cartwright) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 07:35:02 -0500 Subject: [PATCH RESEND] ARM: l2x0: add three special L210 aux control flags In-Reply-To: <20160404233640.GW19428@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1458043882-16881-1-git-send-email-linus.walleij@linaro.org> <20160404232926.GV28102@jcartwri.amer.corp.natinst.com> <20160404233640.GW19428@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20160405123502.GA18394@jcartwri.amer.corp.natinst.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 12:36:40AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 06:29:26PM -0500, Josh Cartwright wrote: > > Similarly, we're waiting on feedback for: > > > > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1456761716-10174-1-git-send-email-brad.mouring at ni.com > > > > Also in the queue; also w/ Rob's Ack. There was a change awhile back to > > unconditionally enable the power-management features of the PL310 which > > caused a noticeable performance degradation on our boards; placing the > > PM options behind a togglable DT property provides us an out. > > For that one, I've been wondering why it's seemingly acceptable to > start throwing *errors* for *new* DT properties which weren't required > before. Yes, this doesn't sound appropriate and should be revisited. > Also, there's no DT documentation for the new properties, which is a > fundamental requirement - and Rob should not have given his ack > without there being a DT documentation patch. Yeah, I partly mispoke here. The patch I linked to is the first of a two part series, the DT bindings document is the second patch, which had Rob's ack (not the one I linked). However, it looks like what made it into your patch tracker was a squashed version of both patches, which is probably not appropriate. It's probably best we drop what's in the patch queue, and we can get a new rev sent out addressing your concerns. Thanks, Josh