From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hanjun.guo@linaro.org (Hanjun Guo) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 18:19:11 +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> <254387f0-1f63-4c83-ef90-570ef072cddf@linaro.org> Message-ID: <6a16a21d-f8c0-a836-22b9-e18a4f13c38e@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 2017/1/4 17:02, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 04/01/17 08:25, Hanjun Guo wrote: >> 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? > > I think it'd make the reviewing easier to have patches that are > semantically grouped together (all the ACPI IORT together, for example). > > It would help understanding where you're aiming at instead of jumping > from irqchip to ACPI and back every other patch... OK, I will reorder the patches and address the comments, then post a new version. Thanks Hanjun