From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: marc.zyngier@arm.com (Marc Zyngier) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:54:24 +0100 Subject: [GIT PULL][for 3.17] pull request for hisilicon soc In-Reply-To: <20140728130526.GM23220@titan.lakedaemon.net> References: <53D1F2B0.1020603@hisilicon.com> <19341047.6Jx15lyPBg@wuerfel> <5326154.xHtqUP4l2C@wuerfel> <20140728130526.GM23220@titan.lakedaemon.net> Message-ID: <53D65610.9030401@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Jason, On 28/07/14 14:05, Jason Cooper wrote: > Arnd, Marc, > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 01:35:50PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Sunday 27 July 2014 09:57:22 Haojian Zhuang wrote: >>> On 26 July 2014 23:30, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>>> On Friday 25 July 2014 14:01:20 xuwei wrote: >>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> Haifeng Yan (3): >>>>> ARM: debug: Rename Hi3716 to HI5XHD2 >>>> >>>> This one had me confused for a while, because it seems like >>>> you are breaking support for hi3xxx, but instead it's just >>>> a different name for the same chip if I see this right. >>>> >>>> An easier approach would actually be to remove DEBUG_HI3716_UART >>>> completely: the setting is exactly the same for >>>> HI3716, HI3620 and HIX5HD2, so you can simply keep the name >>>> for the oldest chip here and change the help text to reflect >>>> which products it works on. >>> >>> The physical address of hi3xxx uart is different from x5hd2. >>> >>> Since hi3620 & hix5hd2 could be built into one image. If I don't use the >>> DEBUG_HIX5HD2_UART to mark, I can't distinguish the right UART >>> physical address only by ARCH_HI3xxx or ARCH_HIX5HD2. >> >> Ah, you are right, I misread the source code. I saw that the >> virtual address is the same for both but didn't notice that >> the physical address is not. >> >> So this patch is ok after all, please just clarify in the changelog >> that it is actually the same chip. >> >>>> Finally, it's not clear why you need a new Kconfig symbol. It seems >>>> that all code you have is compiled independent of these, except for >>>> the dtb files and the DEBUG_LL setting. >>>> >>> >>> Actually it's nearly same except for headsmp.S. >>> >>> Hisilicon guys think that hix5hd2 belongs to another group. They don't >>> want to totally share their code base with hi3xxx. >> >> This doesn't seem like a technical reason to me at all. I would >> much prefer if you and Xu Wei as maintainers were able to describe >> (in the changelog) the underlying technical reasons for decisions >> coming from management if it makes sense, or otherwise explain to >> them that we don't want those patches upstream if it doesn't make >> sense. >> >> It's not a show-stopper this way, and I'd still pull the branches >> with this, but you should be aware that it does not help your >> reputation. >> >>>> What happened to HiP04 support? I thought that would arrive >>>> in time for 3.17. >>>> >>> >>> I just sent v14 in this week. I already updated gic & mcpm according >>> to comments. But I haven't gotten any comments & Ack yet. So I don't >>> know whether we could send the pull request of HiP04 in 3.17. >> >> I don't see anything beyond v10 in my email, and that had a few >> outstanding comments but otherwise looked almost ready to me. >> Can you find out what happened? > > I'd like Marc to review the newest version of the changes to the GIC and > Ack before I'll pull them in. He was on vacation up until today. > You'll be able to pull in a tag on irqchip/gic and base off of that if > needed. Which series is the last one? I have a single v14 patch in my Inbox (01/11, sent on the 23rd), and nothing follows it (and no cover-letter either). The archive seems to agree with the state of my Inbox... Did something go horribly wrong? Thanks, M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...