From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Cousson, Benoit" Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] USB patches for next merge window Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 14:14:37 +0200 Message-ID: <4DDBA12D.1030004@ti.com> References: <20110518110353.GH13908@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> <20110518114242.GI13908@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> <20110523061346.GD3095@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> <20110523101515.8c47e7a2.jhnikula@gmail.com> <20110523081524.GL3095@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> <20110524085244.GE30799@atomide.com> <20110524100455.GA14371@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from arroyo.ext.ti.com ([192.94.94.40]:39490 "EHLO arroyo.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753771Ab1EXMOn (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 May 2011 08:14:43 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20110524100455.GA14371@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: "Balbi, Felipe" Cc: Tony Lindgren , Paul Walmsley , Jarkko Nikula , Linux OMAP Mailing List 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 [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 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