From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92A1F18EA1; Wed, 3 Jan 2024 11:13:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9F4BC15; Wed, 3 Jan 2024 03:13:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.57.85.107] (unknown [10.57.85.107]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8C76C3F7A6; Wed, 3 Jan 2024 03:13:00 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <062556a9-bf24-4f92-9c37-1723984c5127@arm.com> Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2024 11:14:18 +0000 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/6] thermal: netlink: Redefine the API and drop unused code Content-Language: en-US To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Srinivas Pandruvada , Linux PM , Daniel Lezcano , Zhang Rui , Linux ACPI , LKML References: <4556052.LvFx2qVVIh@kreacher> From: Lukasz Luba In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 1/3/24 10:24, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Hi Lukasz, > > On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 9:10 AM Lukasz Luba wrote: >> >> Hi Rafael, >> >> On 1/2/24 13:24, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 9:02 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Everyone, >>>> >>>> This patch series redefines the thermal netlink API to be somewhat more >>>> convenient to use on the caller side and drops some unused code from >>>> the thermal netlink library. >>>> >>>> Please refer to the individual patch changelogs for details. >>> >>> No feedback, so this series doesn't appear to be controversial, and I >>> would like to get it into 6.8. >>> >>> Tentatively queuing it up and please let me know if it is problematic. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >> >> I agree, these are not controversial patches, so IMO queuing them is OK. >> I took a glance at them, but I can do the proper review today if you >> like. > > Well, if you can allocate some time for that, it would be appreciated! Sure, no problem, I'll do that today.