From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hanjun.guo@linaro.org (Hanjun Guo) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 16:25:47 +0800 Subject: [PATCH v6 06/14] irqchip: gicv3-its: platform-msi: refactor its_pmsi_init() to prepare for ACPI In-Reply-To: References: <1483363905-2806-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <1483363905-2806-7-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <8cdc4bfa-18a3-b9f6-aaba-0efe1f75fb40@semihalf.com> <601cbdf2-823d-8bde-bbd9-fcc6a1c67f2c@linaro.org> Message-ID: <254387f0-1f63-4c83-ef90-570ef072cddf@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 2017/1/4 15:29, Tomasz Nowicki wrote: > On 04.01.2017 08:02, Hanjun Guo wrote: >> Hi Tomasz, >> >> On 2017/1/3 15:41, Tomasz Nowicki wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Can we merge patch 4 & 6 into one patch so that we keep refactoring part >>> as one piece ? I do not see a reason to keep them separate or have patch >>> 5 in between. You can refactor what needs to be refactored, add >>> necessary functions to iort.c and then support ACPI for >>> irq-gic-v3-its-platform-msi.c >> >> There are two functions here, >> - retrieve the dev id from IORT which was DT based only; >> >> - init the platform msi domain from MADT; >> >> For each of them split it into two steps, >> - refactor the code for ACPI later and it's easy for review >> because wen can easily to figure out it has functional >> change or not >> >> - add ACPI functionality >> >> Does it make sense? > > It is up to Marc, but personally I prefer: > 1. Refactor dev id retrieving and init function in one patch and > highlight no functional changes in changelog > 2. Crate necessary infrastructure in iort.c > 3. Then add ACPI support to irq-gic-v3-its-platform-msi.c I have no strong preferences, and it's easy to do so as just need to squash/reorder the patches. Marc, Lorenzo, could you give some suggestions here? Thanks Hanjun