From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: julien.grall@citrix.com (Julien Grall) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 12:18:39 +0000 Subject: [PATCH v3 00/62] Add ACPI support for arm64 on Xen In-Reply-To: <564C30B8.3050408@huawei.com> References: <1447753261-7552-1-git-send-email-shannon.zhao@linaro.org> <564B1508.3060703@citrix.com> <564C30B8.3050408@huawei.com> Message-ID: <564C6C9F.7020707@citrix.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 18/11/15 08:03, Shannon Zhao wrote: > On 2015/11/17 19:52, Julien Grall wrote: >> Hi Shannon, >> >> On 17/11/15 09:39, shannon.zhao at linaro.org wrote: >>> From: Shannon Zhao >>> >>> This patch set adds ACPI support for arm64 on Xen. The design document >>> could be found from [1]. >> >> Thank you for your work on it. I think this series would benefits to be >> split in smaller series. >> >> I would do a first series which split DT code from common code. So we >> can get this code as soon as possible in Xen, avoid you to spend less >> time rebasing your us to be spammed with 62 patches for each new version. >> > > Sure, I think I can split this patch set in three parts. > > First one would be porting the necessary Linux changes of ACPI 5.0~6.0. > It includes: > > ACPI 5.0: Add new/changed tables to headers (only changes of Generic > Interrupt and Generic Distributor and some changes already exist) > ACPICA/ARM: ACPI 5.1: Update for MADT changes. > ACPICA: ACPI 6.0: Add changes for MADT table. > ACPICA: ACPI 6.0: Add values for MADT GIC version field > ACPICA/ARM: ACPI 5.1: Update for FADT changes. > ACPICA: ACPI 6.0: Add changes for FADT table > ACPICA/ARM: ACPI 5.1: Update for GTDT table changes. > ACPICA: Headers: Add GTDT flag definitions for the timer subtable. > ACPICA: ACPI 6.0: Add support for STAO table > > Second one as you suggest would be the series which split DT codes from > common code. > > And the last one would be the series which add ACPI support for Xen on > ARM and prepare the necessary things for Dom0. > > How about this way? The order of the first and second can be changed if > you like. I'm fine with either way. Regards, -- Julien Grall