Re: [GIT PULL] USB patches for next merge window

Re: [GIT PULL] USB patches for next merge window

[Felipe Balbi]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1158 bytes --]

Hi,

forgot to Cc linux-omap. Sorry

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 02:03:53PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi Tony,
> 
> these patches are for 2.6.40 merge window.
> 
> The following changes since commit 693d92a1bbc9e42681c42ed190bd42b636ca876f:
> 
>   Linux 2.6.39-rc7 (2011-05-09 19:33:54 -0700)
> 
> are available in the git repository at:
>   master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/balbi/usb.git for-tony-next
> 
> Keshava Munegowda (3):
>       arm: omap: usb: ehci and ohci hwmod structures for omap3 and omap4
>       arm: omap: usb: register hwmods of usbhs
>       arm: omap: usb: device name change for the clk names of usbhs
> 
>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/clock3xxx_data.c       |   28 ++--
>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/clock44xx_data.c       |   10 +-
>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod_3xxx_data.c |  184 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod_44xx_data.c |  153 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/usb-host.c             |   99 ++++++----------
>  drivers/mfd/omap-usb-host.c                |    2 +-
>  6 files changed, 392 insertions(+), 84 deletions(-)
> 
> -- 
> balbi



-- 
balbi

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [GIT PULL] USB patches for next merge window

[Felipe Balbi]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 672 bytes --]

Hi,

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 02:42:44PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> forgot to Cc linux-omap. Sorry
> 
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 02:03:53PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > Hi Tony,
> > 
> > these patches are for 2.6.40 merge window.
> > 
> > The following changes since commit 693d92a1bbc9e42681c42ed190bd42b636ca876f:
> > 
> >   Linux 2.6.39-rc7 (2011-05-09 19:33:54 -0700)
> > 
> > are available in the git repository at:
> >   master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/balbi/usb.git for-tony-next

a gentle ping here too. Without this we will have regressions on
ehci/ohci as the pm_runtime patches have gone in via Samuel.

-- 
balbi

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [GIT PULL] USB patches for next merge window

[Jarkko Nikula]

On Mon, 23 May 2011 09:14:38 +0300
Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> wrote:

> a gentle ping here too. Without this we will have regressions on
> ehci/ohci as the pm_runtime patches have gone in via Samuel.
> 
Does this mean that those regressions happened already when those
patches were made if there is pull request dependency?

Remember bisectability is important. And very important if you are
bisecting something else but which is dependent on this as then you
could mark wrong good/bad points or not able to determine.

-- 
Jarkko

Re: [GIT PULL] USB patches for next merge window

[Felipe Balbi]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1102 bytes --]

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 10:15:15AM +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 23 May 2011 09:14:38 +0300
> Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> wrote:
> 
> > a gentle ping here too. Without this we will have regressions on
> > ehci/ohci as the pm_runtime patches have gone in via Samuel.
> > 
> Does this mean that those regressions happened already when those
> patches were made if there is pull request dependency?

not really, no.

> Remember bisectability is important. And very important if you are
> bisecting something else but which is dependent on this as then you
> could mark wrong good/bad points or not able to determine.

True, true... I just wanted to avoid conflicts as much as possible so
arch/arm/*omap*/ goes through Tony, and drivers/mfd/* goes through
Samuel.

pm_rutime and hwmod conversion aren't really that tightly coupled. As
long as the arch code is in place, we can do pm_runtime at any time. Not
sure if it's true the other way around. But one thing is for sure, if
this pull request isn't taken, then I guess clocks won't enable on
omap-usbhs...

-- 
balbi

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [GIT PULL] USB patches for next merge window

[Tony Lindgren]

* Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> [110523 11:11]:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 10:15:15AM +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 May 2011 09:14:38 +0300
> > Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > a gentle ping here too. Without this we will have regressions on
> > > ehci/ohci as the pm_runtime patches have gone in via Samuel.
> > > 
> > Does this mean that those regressions happened already when those
> > patches were made if there is pull request dependency?
> 
> not really, no.
> 
> > Remember bisectability is important. And very important if you are
> > bisecting something else but which is dependent on this as then you
> > could mark wrong good/bad points or not able to determine.
> 
> True, true... I just wanted to avoid conflicts as much as possible so
> arch/arm/*omap*/ goes through Tony, and drivers/mfd/* goes through
> Samuel.
> 
> pm_rutime and hwmod conversion aren't really that tightly coupled. As
> long as the arch code is in place, we can do pm_runtime at any time. Not
> sure if it's true the other way around. But one thing is for sure, if
> this pull request isn't taken, then I guess clocks won't enable on
> omap-usbhs...

Looks like these patches are missing acks from Benoit and Paul?
I'd rather not pull them in without the acks. Note that we have
a very short merge window this time, so let's see if we can still
get them in.

Regards,

Tony

Re: [GIT PULL] USB patches for next merge window

[Felipe Balbi]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1850 bytes --]

Hi,

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:52:45AM +0300, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> [110523 11:11]:
> > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 10:15:15AM +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> > > On Mon, 23 May 2011 09:14:38 +0300
> > > Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > a gentle ping here too. Without this we will have regressions on
> > > > ehci/ohci as the pm_runtime patches have gone in via Samuel.
> > > > 
> > > Does this mean that those regressions happened already when those
> > > patches were made if there is pull request dependency?
> > 
> > not really, no.
> > 
> > > Remember bisectability is important. And very important if you are
> > > bisecting something else but which is dependent on this as then you
> > > could mark wrong good/bad points or not able to determine.
> > 
> > True, true... I just wanted to avoid conflicts as much as possible so
> > arch/arm/*omap*/ goes through Tony, and drivers/mfd/* goes through
> > Samuel.
> > 
> > pm_rutime and hwmod conversion aren't really that tightly coupled. As
> > long as the arch code is in place, we can do pm_runtime at any time. Not
> > sure if it's true the other way around. But one thing is for sure, if
> > this pull request isn't taken, then I guess clocks won't enable on
> > omap-usbhs...
> 
> Looks like these patches are missing acks from Benoit and Paul?
> I'd rather not pull them in without the acks. Note that we have
> a very short merge window this time, so let's see if we can still
> get them in.

Ok... let's see if they'll Ack the patches which have been floating
around. [1], [2] and [3] are the patches which need Ack.

[1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=130512838504191&w=2
[2] http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=130512862104681&w=2
[3] http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=130512812503806&w=2

-- 
balbi

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [GIT PULL] USB patches for next merge window

[Cousson, Benoit]

On 5/24/2011 12:04 PM, Balbi, Felipe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:52:45AM +0300, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>> * Felipe Balbi<balbi@ti.com>  [110523 11:11]:
>>> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 10:15:15AM +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 23 May 2011 09:14:38 +0300
>>>> Felipe Balbi<balbi@ti.com>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> a gentle ping here too. Without this we will have regressions on
>>>>> ehci/ohci as the pm_runtime patches have gone in via Samuel.
>>>>>
>>>> Does this mean that those regressions happened already when those
>>>> patches were made if there is pull request dependency?
>>>
>>> not really, no.
>>>
>>>> Remember bisectability is important. And very important if you are
>>>> bisecting something else but which is dependent on this as then you
>>>> could mark wrong good/bad points or not able to determine.
>>>
>>> True, true... I just wanted to avoid conflicts as much as possible so
>>> arch/arm/*omap*/ goes through Tony, and drivers/mfd/* goes through
>>> Samuel.
>>>
>>> pm_rutime and hwmod conversion aren't really that tightly coupled. As
>>> long as the arch code is in place, we can do pm_runtime at any time. Not
>>> sure if it's true the other way around. But one thing is for sure, if
>>> this pull request isn't taken, then I guess clocks won't enable on
>>> omap-usbhs...
>>
>> Looks like these patches are missing acks from Benoit and Paul?
>> I'd rather not pull them in without the acks. Note that we have
>> a very short merge window this time, so let's see if we can still
>> get them in.
>
> Ok... let's see if they'll Ack the patches which have been floating
> around. [1], [2] and [3] are the patches which need Ack.
>
> [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=130512838504191&w=2
> [2] http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=130512862104681&w=2
> [3] http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=130512812503806&w=2

Considering that:
1) Neither Paul not myself are in Cc of any of these patches
2) the subject start with "arm: omap: usb..."

It will be quite hard (at least for me) to detect patches that require 
my attention.
Throwing a bottle into the sea is probably a much more efficient method 
to ensure people attention :-)

I'll have a look, but after a quick check the OMAP4 hwmod already 
contains some order issue and maybe some naming convention as well.

Regards,
Benoit