From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 08:30:30 +0100 Subject: [GIT PULL] arm64: X-Gene platforms DTS changes queued for 4.9 - part1 In-Reply-To: References: <6041122.z65jfDXEcc@wuerfel> Message-ID: <20160915072709.GA3380@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 06:57:59PM -0700, Duc Dang wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Friday, September 2, 2016 11:46:31 AM CEST Duc Dang wrote: > >> Hi Arnd, Olof, > >> > >> This is the first part of DTS changes for X-Gene platforms targeted for 4.9. > >> > >> The changes include: > >> + X-Gene Soc PMU support patch set from Tai Nguyen (v10 reviewed by > >> Mark, DT binding document acked by Rob [1] and was suggested to merge > >> via am-soc tree by Will [2]) > >> + Follow up patch to enable DT entry for SoC PMU on X-Gene v2 > >> + Correct PCIe legacy interrupt mode to level-active high > >> + DTS entry for X-Gene hwmon (v4 acked by Guenter, DT binding document > >> and driver is in linux-next now [3]) > >> > >> Regards, > >> Duc Dang. > > > > Sorry for the long delay, I've just now started looking at the dts changes > > for arm64. The changes to arch/arm64/boot/dts look fine, but I don't > > want to mix driver changes with dts changes, as we use separate > > branches for those. > > > > Please send this again as two pull requests, one for the dts changes, and > > one for the rest (pmu driver, binding and MAINTAINERS file). Please > > also include an explanation in the tag description about why this gets > > merged through arm-soc. I see that Will suggested doing it that way, > > but I don't see what the reason is. We normally don't touch that directory. > Hi Arnd, > > I am not clear about the reason either. Probably we don't have a > dedicated tree for SoC PMU? That's right, there isn't a dedicated tree for SoC PMUs. I tend to handle the architected PMUs (e.g. the ones in the CPUs), but other PMUs have been ad-hoc in the past. That said, Mark and I do tend to review PMU drivers, because the internal perf interface is pretty easy to get wrong. Arnd -- what would you like to see here? I could collect SoC PMU patches together and send you a pull request, or would you like me to take them via the arm64 tree? It's worth noting that we have PMU drivers under drivers/bus and drivers/hwtracing too, and I *think* arm-soc has handled those in the past. Will